FRED LOCKLEY 

RARE WESTERN BOOKS 

4227 S. E. Stark St. 
PORTLAND. ORE. 




s 



r> 



09 



PSALMODY. 



AN 



EXAMINATION OF AUTHORITY 



FOR 



MAKING UNINSPIRED SONGS, 



USING THEM IN THE FORMAL WORSHIP OF GOD. 



BY 

J. B. JOHNSTON, 

PASTOR UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, ST. CLAIRSVILLE, 0. 



"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of 
men." — Matt. xv. 9. 



ST. CLAIRSVILLE, Ohio: 

JOHN STUART. 
1871. 



V 






1 



b 



30 J*- H? 



LC Control Number 




tmp96 028304 



fi 



X 






TO 

THE MEMORY OP 

MY DEARLY BELOVED 

AND 

VENERABLE FATHER AND BROTHER 

IN 

THE MINISTRY, 

REY. JOHN T. PEESSBT, D. D., 

THIS LITTLE VOLUME 

IS 

VERY AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED 

BY THE AUTHOR, 

J. B. JOHNSTON. 
St. Clairsville, 0., May, 1871. 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER I. 

PRINCIPLES PECULIAR TO THE ORDINANCE OF PRAYER EXAM- 
INED, AS PRELIMINARY TO THE QUESTION INVOLVING THE 
ANALOGY OF PRAYER, PREACHING AND PRAISE. 

What are the essential elements of prayer ? — Human inability to 
pray — The spirit of prayer a grace of the Holy Spirit — This grace 
a promised blessing — Acceptable prayer is inspired — This inspira- 
tion explained and distinguished 17 

CHAPTER II. 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE ASSUMED ANALOGY AND PARALLEL- 
ISM BETWEEN PRAYER, PREACHING AND PRAISE. 

The assumption stated and questions examined — Scriptural elements 
of the ordinance of preaching the gospel — Principles of analogy 
applied — Scriptural elements of the ordinance of praise — Impor- 
tant distinctions applied — Parallelism found wanting 23 

CHAPTER III. 

REVIEW OF THE DOCTRINE OF UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE 
AND PREACHING, AND THEIR ASSUMED PARALLELISM. 

Review of a reviewer — Inspired and uninspired men placed in the 
same category — Divine inspiration and poetic genius in the same 
category — Authority of Divine inspiration weakened — Illogical 
comparisons — Mistranslations, paraphrases, etc., examined — Fal- 
lacy exposed — Absurd claims of Church prerogative — The Church 
passing on translations, or versions, not analogous to passing on 

Hymn-Books 48 

5 



D CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER IV. 

EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY CLAIMED FOR MAKING 
AND USING, IN THE FORMAL WORSHIP OF GOD, UNINSPIRED 

SONGS. 

In what we agree — In what we differ — Demand of negative proof un- 
reasonable — In the true issue our brethren affirm — Five affirmative 
Proof-Texts for the Presbyterian system of Psalmody — Our friends 
argue both sides of the true issue — Irrelevant verbal criticism — 
Appeal to reason and argument from the "stronghold" texts — 
Authority from command — A representative paragraph examined — 
The leading point of assumption, its identities and deductions 
therefrom — The argument from Scripture example — Entrance into 
Jerusalem, Luke xix. 38 — "Pattern" for Presbyterian hymn- 
making — The second "pattern" case for so making, Acts iv. 24 — 
Impromptu Prayer-meeting, or Committee on Revision of Bible 
Psalms — Commentators — Barnes and Jacobus — Reflections 81 

CHAPTER V. 

THE SCOTTISH VERSION OF THE BOOK OF PSALMS VINDICATED 
AS A TRANSLATION. 

Importance attached to the question of translation — No other version 
subjected to such extreme criticism — Mistranslation defined — 
Charges of gross mistranslations examined — The First, the Six- 
teenth, and the Sixty-ninth Psalms vindicated from charges of 
gross mistranslation — Mistranslations in the prose Bible compared 
with the worst examples in Rouse — Charges of patchwork and para- 
phrase of Rouse examined — Manufactured patches charged to the 
account of Rouse — Specimens of similar and greater patches in our 
English version — Various classes of specimens — Use of Divine 
names, when not in the original, charged as a prejudice against 
Rouse — Superabundance of similar instances in our prose Bible 112 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE SCOTTISH VERSION COMPARED WITH TnE SEPTUAGINT. 

Why this comparison — Its importance in this discussion — The estab- 
lished opinion and decision of the Churches in regard to the Sep- 
tuagint as a translation — Its defects compared with those of the 



CONTENTS. 7 

Scottish version — The claims of the Scottish version sustained by 
such comparison — Luther's translation incidentally noticed — In- 
ferences 147 

CHAPTER VII. 

CONCLUSION. 

The argument from history — Very briefly noticed — Of comparatively 
little importance in this controversy — Yet some facts of history with 
consideration — The Palatinate Churches — History not the rule of 
faith and worship — The mistake and its fatal consequences — Appeal 
to our readers — Address to brethren in the ministry — Appeal to the 
friends of union 157 



INTRODUCTION. 



VX7E have endeavored to explore the field of controversy, 
on the subject of psalmody, and to ascertain what 
are the true issues involved. The Presbyterian churches 
practically differ upon a vital question in relation to the 
matter of divinely instituted worship. This practical dif- 
ference is the legitimate fruit of a difference, somewhere, 
in some fundamental principle ; or there must be want of 
integrity to principle somewhere. The latter would be 
uncharitable, if directly charged, and must not be enter- 
tained. We misunderstand the subject, or we misunder- 
one another. Perhaps there is misunderstanding in regard 
to both. 

These are certainly very plain first principles common 
to the organic faith of all true Presbyterians, which, if con- 
sistently applied, would bind us all together in one practice 
in the formal worship of God. Here is a fundamental 
principle, regulating the Divine worship, to which we are 
all pledged, occupying a prominent place in the organic 
law common to us all — 

" But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God 
is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed 
will, that he may not be worshipped according to the im- 
aginations and devices of men — or any other way not pre- 

9 



10 INTRODUCTION. 

scribed in the holy scripture." "But in vain do they 
worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of 
men." 

Losing sight of these first principles, we soon diverge 
from the common line, and fall out by the way. It is 
high time that we were all, in this controversy, brought 
back to principles in common, and that we shape our dis- 
cussions accordingly. 

On the one hand, most of the treatises in favor of a 
scripture psalmody have been apologies for the Book of 
Psalms ; or, defences of their use in the worship of God, 
to the exclusion of human compositions ; or, their suitable- 
ness for worship in New Testament times ; or, their supe- 
rior excellence to all human songs. Most of these forms 
of discussion involve mere truisms — matter beyond legiti- 
mate debate among intelligent Christians. The Psalms 
of the Bible need no apology. They need no defence; 
since neither God, nor his works, nor his word need any 
defence. We make no attempt to show their fitness for 
the worship of God, or the authority for their use. God 
made them — fitted them for his praise, and commands us 
to sing. Treatises in the forms referred to are very well 
in their place. They are helpers of the faith of pious 
Christians who feed on God's word. Yet they may not 
meet the main points in this issue on the psalmody ques- 
tion. 

On the other hand, our friends, in pleading their cause 
of a human psalmody, are very careful to avoid the dis- 
cussion of first principles, and their application here ; and 
the better to divert from the real question, demand of us 
authority for the exclusive use of insjnred songs. About 
the authority to use the inspired songs of the Bible, there 
is not the shadow of dispute. No sane Christian holds that 
it is wrong to sing the songs of the Bible in the worship 



INTRODUCTION. 11 

of God. Who, unless a pagan, or a turk, or an infidel, 
will refuse to sing, living or dying, the twenty-third 
Psalm ? So far as inspired songs are concerned we all go 
together, by consent of all. "What have we to affirm in 
debate here ? What have we to prove ? Surely not what 
no one denies. The matter of difference, of debate and 
proof lies elsewhere. 

Our brethren diverge from the common way in which 
we all travel together in God's worship. They make their 
new songs, they worship with them, ask us to join them, 
affirming their authority for that new, and different and 
peculiar way of worship. Now are we called to prove our 
divine right to worship in a way our brethren affirm with 
us to be divinely authorized — a way in which they and we 
actually worship together ? Or, is not the onus probandi 
theirs to carry, not ours ? It is certainly very convenient, 
in this controversial discussion, to repeat the euphonious 
phrases, " The exclusive system" and to demand authority 
for the " exclusive use of inspired songs." 

As our brethren invite us to follow them in their 
new way of making their own matter of praise, we hear, 
and weigh their assumed authority — for they affirm they 
have authority to make their own denominational hymns. 
We deny. Here, in a nutshell comprehension, is the whole 
field of controversy. There is no other. They have 
brought upon the stand their witnesses. We have heard 
the testimony ; and have heard them sum up the evidence, 
and argue their case. Our work is to try their evidence 
in chief, cross-examine their witnesses, and review the 
whole argument. Nor are we to be diverted from this 
course by efforts to thrust upon us side issues, or false 
issues. 

The friends of the Prayer-Book call on us to prove our 
authority for exclusive extempore prayer, and demand of 



12 INTRODUCTION. 

us to show the wrong of reading prayers. Rome uses the 
wafer, calls on us to prove it wrong, and coolly demands 
the authority for the exclusive use of bread and wine, so of 
the hymn-book. Now we refuse to be decoyed by any 
such ambush. We have no text in our Bible that names 
either Wafer, Prayer-Book, or human Hymn-Book. Not 
one, saying they are wrong. Enough for us that their 
institution, as ways of worship, has no place in the Bible. 
It is their friends' business to find the institution there. 
Till that is done we shall be content to serve our Master 
in what we know to be his way, without wafer, prayer- 
book, or new hymnal. 

The whole field of argument occupied by our brethren 
may be divided into the following sections : 

1. The argument of assumption, of hypothesis and 
speculation, presented in the form of confident and com- 
placent triumph, thus — 

" If we may make our own prayers, and our own ser- 
mons, why may we not make the matter of our own 
praise ? " 

So long as the assumption here passes without challenge 
and investigation, our friends will seem to hold vantage 
ground. Here is assumed the very thing which should 
have been proved, before such illogical stride had been 
made to a conclusion remote from the premises. Are 
these parallelisms ? Do the points of analogy warrant the 
assumption as true, the very matter to be proved ? The 
fact that with our brethren, everywhere, this assumption 
seems to be used as unquestioned and unquestionable, has 
induced us to give it more elaborate consideration. We 
ask from our readers here, a patient, persevering and 
thorough investigation of all the principles involved. 

2. The argument of high church prerogative — The Di- 
vine authority lodged in the Supreme Judicatory of the 



INTRODUCTION. 13 

church, to make and authorize church creeds, and on the 
same principle to make and authorize the matter of the 
church's worship. While it is conceded that no man has 
the right to prepare songs of praise to be used in the 
worship of God, yet it is presumed to be lodged with the 
"church representative" By what authority does Rome 
declare the Pope infallible ? — What the principle ? 

3. It is assumed that the command to sing Psalms, 
hymns and spiritual songs implies the authority to make 
the matter to be sung. The following three texts, it is 
assumed, furnish authority to make the songs : 1 Cor. xiv. 
26; Eph. v. 17; Col. iii. 16. The two following texts 
furnish the example after which the making is to be per- 
formed : Luke xix. 38 ; Acts iv. 24. These are the 
''strong hold authority" for uninspired hymns. 

4. The Scottish version is denounced in the form of 
attack upon Rouse, as mere " patch-work, paraphrase — no 
version at all." Rouse tried by another version, and not 
by the original text, and summarily condemned, it be- 
comes an item of some importance, in the vindication of 
the truth, to give some attention to the subject, and settle 
the question in regard to the claims of the Scottish version 
to a place among recognized translations. Do we, as 
charged, sing uninspired Psalms while professing to sing 
inspired matter exclusively? It is our right to review 
this charge. 

Where churches differ, and where their differences are 
the cause of their separation, nothing can be more im- 
portant — the parties being equally honest — than to under- 
stand precisely the questions at issue. Parties may beat 
the air, and so exhaust their strength, while strengthening 
mutual prejudices, and their discussions fail to bring them 
any nearer to an understanding of the truth, and of one 
another. On the other hand, while the charges are rung 



14 INTRODUCTION. 

upon the "want of fetters in the matter of praise in 
worship, as in preaching," we shall remain in statu quo, or 
in retrogression in regard to union. 

Rouse's paraphrase — Rouse's party — Rouse's version, 
have nothing to do with the question of union here, so far 
as honest and intelligent men are concerned. Nor is it 
anywhere near this, where the issue lies, involving the 
question of union. It lies deeper, and is broader than this 
silly thing. If Rouse's version were thrown into the sea, 
the barrier stands intact in all its mountain largeness, 
since the songs of the Bible remain intact, and the distinc- 
tion between the ordinance of praise and preaching stands 
marked in palpable lines on the pages of the Bible. 

Sermons, infallible by divine inspiration, never was 
God's divinely appointed ordinance of preaching ; but un- 
inspired men, ordained and appointed to preach uninspired 
sermons, with specific directions to all hearers to bring 
them all to the test of the inspired standard — this is God's 
ordinance of preaching. God has given largely and abund- 
antly inspired matter of praise — has commanded to sing, 
to sing only — and not one line in all his word suggestive 
of the thought, in regard to the duty or privilege of test- 
ing one line by the unerring standard of God's word, of 
all we may sing in his worship. 

It is not a question in issue whether man, by divine ordi- 
nation, may make and preach uninspired, fallible sermons. 
It is a question in issue whether it is God's work or man's 
to make the songs of praise with which God is to be 
worshipped. This is just the issue. To disabuse the 
mind of other issues, and bring to this, is the object of our 
feeble effort, in so far as this part of our work is concerned. 

Believing that the divided worship of God, in all the 
churches, is the most decisive element now sundering 
evangelical departments of the household of faith, we 



INTRODUCTION. 15 

have been induced to present this humble work for the 
consideration of union-loving Christians, whose creeds in 
regard to doctrine and order are substantially the same. 

" Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren 
to dwell together in unity." Zion's " watchmen shall 
lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing; 
for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring 
again Zion." 



CHAPTER I. 

PRINCIPLES PECULIAR TO THE ORDINANCE OF PRAYER 
EXAMINED, AS PRELIMINARY TO THE QUESTION IN- 
VOLVING THE ANALOGY OF PRAYER, PREACHING AND 
PRAISE. 

What are the essential elements of prayer ? — Human inability to pray — The 
spirit of prayer a grace of the Holy Spirit — This grace a promised bles- 
sing — Acceptable prayer is inspired — This inspiration explained and 
distinguished. 

rpHE salient point, the defiant argument for the use of a 

human psalmody, may be stated thus : As we make our 

own prayers and sermons, so may we make our own praise. 

This assumes that prayer, preaching and praise are 
analogous, and present parallelisms. Now, if the assump- 
tion be true, the conclusion is logical, and the divine right 
of an uninspired psalmody is established. 

We at once concede the divine appointment of extem- 
pore prayer without the book, and that we are not con- 
fined to the inspired prayers of Scripture. So, of the 
eermon. We concede the divine authority for uninspired 
extempore sermonizing. We are not confined in preach- 
ing to the inspired sermons of the Bible. Reading ser- 
mons from the Bible is not preaching at all, as Christ has 
commissioned an ordained gospel ministry. 

To weigh fairly the argument of analogy here, we must 
distinctly define each of these ordinances, prayer, preach- 
ing and praise, and if their distinctions and discrepancies 
are more prominent than their analogies, then the argu- 
ment fails. To this end we must have scriptural views of 
2* 17 



18 PSALMODY. 

these ordinances, of their nature, their character and their 
essential elements. 

Then, what is prayer f Not prayer in form merely ; but, 
what is the prayer of God's appointment, which he hears 
and answers always ? The prayer that God requires, that 
his promise recognizes and that he accepts, may be thus 
defined : Prayer is an offering up to God the desires of the 
heart, for things agreeable to his will, by faith in Christ, 
inspired and directed by the Holy Spirit. Such desires, 
offered thus to God, constitute prayer — not the prayer of 
the Pharisee, but of the publican. 

To such prayer neither saint nor sinner is competent, 
without the special grace of the Divine Spirit implanting 
the desires offered. The sinner cannot be a fit subject of 
such desires. His unrenewed heart "is enmity against 
God, is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can 
be." " The natural man receiveth not the things of the 
Spirit of God ; for they are foolishness unto him ; neither 
can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. ,, 
He can neither know nor feel spiritual want. He is spirit- 
ually dead. There is no breath in him. 

The saint, by regenerating grace, is made the fit subject 
of spiritual desires. His new nature can entertain such 
desires. He is prepared to receive them, as the good heart 
to receive the seed of the word. Yet, this saint cannot 
pray without special grace — without the spirit of grace 
and supplication poured upon him by the Divine Spirit as 
the Author of prayer. " Likewise the Spirit also helpeth 
our infirmities ; for we know not what we should pray for 
as we ought ; but the Spirit, itself, maketh intercession for 
us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that 
searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the 
Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints 
according to the will of God." Saints are taught to say, 



PRAYER, PREACHING AND PRAISE. 19 

in regard to prayer : " Teach us what we shall say unto 
him, for we cannot order our speech by reason of dark- 
ness." It is not in the power of a believer, even, to origi- 
nate in his own heart an impulse producing a spiritual 
desire, and to breathe out that desire to God without the 
special influence of the Divine Spirit as the Author of 
prayer. That desire which constitutes prayer is the direct 
implantation of the Spirit, and beyond the originating 
power of the proper subject of such implantation, as Adam, 
when found a creature, was a proper subject for receiving 
and entertaining the breath of life, yet he could not 
breathe into himself that breath. The spiritual nature 
can receive and entertain the spiritual breathing, but the 
Spirit of God gives the breath the desire which is the 
essence of prayer. 

THE SPIRIT, AS A SPIRIT OF GRACE AND SUPPLICATION, IS 
PROMISED TO MAKE SUCH PRAYER. 

" I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the 
inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and supplica- 
tion." Zach. xii. 10. The Spirit helpeth our infirmities, 
making intercession for us with groanings — making inter- 
cession according to the will of God. The promises of the 
aid of the Spirit in making prayer are peculiar and dis- 
tinguishing. In regard to aid in making hymns for the 
worship of God, there is no such promise. Dr Owen has 
w r ell remarked — " It cannot be denied that the assistance 
which the Holy Spirit gives us, in our prayers and suppli- 
cations, is more frequently and expressly asserted in the 
Scriptures than any other operation of his whatever." 

THE PRAYER OP FAITH, ACCEPTABLE TO GOD, IS INSPIRED 
BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

Inspiration should be defined, and carefully distinguished 
here. The term is so variously used there should be an 



20 PSALMODY. 

understanding as to its use in this discussion. It is ap- 
plied to poetic genius. This is the highest idea the 
Chinese have of inspiration. It is used of intoxicating 
liquors, and of almost all kinds of brain stimulants. It is 
used of the passions, anger, rage, love, etc. Most of these 
uses of the term are very figurative. It is applied to mere 
intellectual endowments, as Job — "And the inspiration of 
the Almighty giveth them understanding." 

In all the instances noticed, the term inspiration is used 
in a loose, and improper sense. As the works of creation 
and providence differ materially, and yet are Divine 
works, so all these operations, which are called inspiration, 
present very different operations of the Divine Spirit. 
Creation brings from nothing into being. Providence 
sustains and controls what exists. Regeneration brings 
into being a new spiritual creature by creative power. 
Sanctification produces its appropriate changes upon its 
subject. There are inspirations which breathe into the 
mind new creations, as the breath of life was breathed 
into Adam. These are inspirations in the proper sense. 

This sense of the term inspiration, which breathes new 
creations into the mind, by the Spirit, is its use applied to 
prayer and the Holy Scriptures. The one is the inspira- 
tion of desires. The other is the inspiration of words. 
The words of the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy 
Spirit. This makes them the veritable word of God, on 
the principle of authorship. 

The question of the " verbal inspiration " of the Bible we 
will not here discuss. The reader may consult, for the 
defence of this cardinal truth, such standard works as 
Buck's Theo. Die; Brown, of Had., Die. and Theo. ; Dr. 
Scott's Com.; Prof. Dick's Theo.; Basis Union U. P. 
Church ; Gaussen, of Geneva, etc. 

The Scriptures state the doctrine of inspired prayer, 



PRAYER, PREACHING AND PRAISE. 21 

almost in explicit terms. " I called upon thy name, O 
Lord, out of the low dungeon. Thou hast heard my 
voice ; hide not thine ear at my breathing, my cry." 
Lam. iii. 55, 56. Here Jeremiah calls his prayer, his 
breathing. " My breathing, my cry." A breathing organ- 
ism is chosen as the figure by which the Spirit illustrates 
prayer. A breathing organic frame is a proper subject of 
respiration. It breathes. It inhales breath. In this 
spiritual respiration of prayer, the only question around 
which a doubt can be thrown is this, viz. : By what power 
is the breath of prayer breathed into the soul, and the 
respiration sustained. 

Then, whence the first impulse, in the heart, given to a 
gracious, spiritual and acceptable desire offered up to God, 
which he will answer as the prayer of faith ? There can 
be but one of two answers properly entertained. Either, 
the desire in question receives its first impulse from the 
sinner himself, and so is self-willed and self-made ; or, it is 
from the Spirit of God, and by him indited. Can there 
be any other conclusion? What other? Christ says, 
"Without me ye can do nothing." Without his power 
and providence, absolutely and universally, nothing. 
Without his Spirit and grace, spiritually and acceptably, 
nothing ; each spiritual thing according to its kind, and 
according to the character of the grace promised — " grace 
for grace ; " grace according to need ; strength as the day 
is ; for prayer according to our need, and the promise to 
supply that need. Is the breathing — the originating of 
acceptable desires in the heart an exception ? Then, why 
the promises of the Spirit to do for us that very thing, 
without which the prayer of faith cannot be? To "pour 
out a Spirit of grace and supplication." 

And here, let it be borne in mind that there are no 
promises in the Bible, warranting aid in any other duty, 



22 PSALMODY. 

like the promises in regard to prayer. None similar for 
making songs ; none similar for making sermons, for teach- 
ing, for exhortation, for argument in defending truth. 
Here the promise secures groanings that we may not be 
able to utter — feelings of need, and desires we cannot 
express. How wonderfully strange — how distinguishing 
and peculiar the promises in regard to prayer ! 

Prayer, we conclude, is, therefore, inspired. It is not 
made by the will and power of the human heart. The 
Divine Spirit, according to his office and work, makes, by 
inspiration, the desires of the heart in prayer. Of these 
desires he is the Author, as he is the Author of the words 
in the inspired Scriptures. 



CHAPTER II. 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE ASSUMED ANALOGY AND PARAL- 
LELISM BETWEEN PRAYER, PREACHING AND PRAISE. 

The assumptions stated and questions examined — Scriptural elements of 
the ordinance of preaching the gospel — Principles of analogy applied — 
Scriptural elements of the ordinance of praise — Important distinctions 
applied — Parallelism found wanting. 

TX7E have, perhaps, said enough in the former chapter, 
in regard to how and by whom the matter of accepta- 
ble prayer is to be provided. Here, we think the Bible 
way is plain. The standing office and work of the Holy 
Spirit should remove all difficulty in the mind of every 
believing sinner. His office and work is to prepare prayers 
for all the saints as they are needed. 

Doubtless, too, to the sincere Christian it is important 
to know the mind of the Spirit revealed in the word, in 
regard to the ordinance of praise. Not so much, however, 
in regard to the nature and duty of singing praise, simply. 
This is plain to all. About this there cannot well be any 
dispute whatever. He that runs may read. But how, 
and by whom, the songs of praise to be sung, are to be 
provided, that is not quite so plain to all. Indeed, here is 
the whole field of difficulty. 

The following question is ever pressed as if sufficient to 
settle all doubts involved — "If we may make our own 
prayers, may we not make our own songs of praise, and 
offer them to God V We answer — certainly, " if;" If we 
may make our prayers. But we see from the word of God 
we neither may nor can make our own prayers. That 

2'6 



24 PSALMODY. 

work belongs to the office of the Holy Spirit. He is en- 
gaged to do that work for us ; and we think, that we poor 
sinners had better trust Him with it. And farther, as if 
it were the same — it is asked — " If we are not confined to 
the words of scripture in our prayers, why should we be 
confined to them in our praises ?" So far from admitting 
the analogy assumed, we are bound by consistency to eject 
the idea of being confined in our prayers to any written 
words whatever. We are not confined to any written 
words, because the Spirit is promised to give us a knowl- 
edge and sense of our need, and inspire for us desires for 
supply. " Prayer is offering up our desires to God." 
Prayers read are unnatural — Prayers extemporized are the 
natural form of expressing the inspired feelings and 
desires and wants of the soul. The use of written words 
in praise is perfectly natural. Where, as an act of reli- 
gious worship, was ever God praised by singing, without 
words written or recited ? The use of extemporized songs 
in social praise is more unnatural than written prayers. 
The latter, alas ! too often occurs. Where, when, how or 
by whom the former ? 

Still farther, on the assumed principle of analogy and 
parallelism, it is asked — " if, in the ordinance of preach- 
ing, we are not confined to the inspired words of the ser- 
mons recorded in the Bible, why, in the ordinance of 
social praise in the worship of God, confine ourselves to 
the use of the inspired songs of the Bible ? Or, if we may 
make our own sermons — if we may use our own uninspired 
words in expounding the law and word of God, and in all 
our ministerial offers of Christ and his salvation to sinners, 
and in all our labors to persuade men to come to the Sav- 
iour, why not the same liberty in composing, penning and 
preparing hymns for the social praise of the church ? 
These questions seem to be frank, and doubtless are 



SCRIPTURE ELEMENTS OF PRAISE. 25 

deemed pertinent. Those who propound them seem also 
to believe them like mighty scales on whose equipoise 
hang very grave issues. Then let these questions be faith- 
fully adjusted. In their adjustment we must bring them 
to the balances of the sanctuary. " To the law and to the 
testimony ; if they speak not according to this word, it is 
because there is no light in them." 

Doubtless it is important to understand all the princi- 
ples involved in these test questions. We should know 
wherefore we preach. We should know the relation in 
which preaching stands to the Bible. Whether preaching 
the gospel by the ordained ministry, according to Christ's 
commission, be expounding or reciting the words of the 
Bible. We should know the extent of the commission to 
preach, as commanded and as illustrated by the preaching 
of Christ and his Apostles. So, doubtless, we should know 
wherefore we praise and wherefore we pray ; and more — 
how we may secure, according to the will of God, the ac- 
ceptable matter of all these. " How shall we order our 
speech before God," is the concern of every good man. 

Now, in regard to preaching and praising, let us give a 
little attention — let us see just where we are. As for 
preaching, what is the rule ? Are our sermons required to 
be inspired and infallible ? Are the words of the sermon 
of Christ on the Mount, and the words of the sermons of 
any other, as recorded in the Bible, inspired and infallible? 
And may we search the Scriptures, as did the commended 
Bereans, to see whether those things spoken by Christ in 
that sermon on the Mount be so ? May we try any of the 
sermons recorded in the Bible as the noble Bereans tried 
some sermons they heard preached ? May we try the ser- 
mons written in the Bible as we may try with the Bible 
the sermons of Spurgeon, or any other preacher? Were 
those sermons heard by the Bereans, and by them brought 
3 



26 PSALMODY. 

to the test of the scriptures, of equal authority with the 
sermons recorded in the Bible, whether preached by Christ, 
or any other preacher ? What were those sermons ? And 
where are they now ? 

Again, it may be of some advantage here to inquire a 
little farther into the nature of the ordinance of preach- 
ing: — Would reading, or reciting the sermons preached 
by Christ, and by inspiration recorded in the Bible as a 
part of the written word of God, be an exemplification of 
the ordinance of preaching, and the fulfilment, in letter 
and spirit, of the gospel commission and command of 
Christ, — " Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel 
to every creature — teaching all nations to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you ?" Would the 
Bereans have been commended for bringing to the test of 
the Scriptures, which they searched, that kind of preach- 
ing? 

This, now, brings fairly before us the following questions 
of practical importance to understand, — What is a faithful 
exemplification of the divine ordinance of preaching? 
And wherein have we a complete exemplification of the 
divine ordinance of praise ? 

In this connection, a passing remark only in reference 
to the second question — more hereafter in another. Paul 
says : " I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with 
the understanding also." And he instructs the Colossians 
that their singing should be " with grace in their hearts." 
It may be noticed that the Apostle does not say he will 
make psalms, or any matter of j)raise. Nor, that he will 
make and sing. He does not direct the Colossians to 
make songs, or to sing songs made by some Christian 
brother — simply to sing. Could Paul have sung the twenty- 
third Psalm with the spirit and with the understanding? 
Could the Christians of Colosse have fulfilled the Apostles 



SCRIPTURE ELEMENTS OP PEAISE. 27 

injunction to sing " with grace in the heart," by singing 
any Bible song? Would singing the songs in the Bible 
answer these specifications, and exemplify the ordinance 
of praise ? If not, what essential element is wanting ? Is 
it that the song should have been made by the singers 
themselves ? Or that some poet should have made the 
songs for the occasions ? Nothing of all these. 

Again, as we are passing. — We have seen the Bible 
authority and institution for testing sermons by the scrip- 
tures as the Divine and permanent standard by which all 
]jreaching is to be tested. If the ordinance of praise in 
regard to " making" be parallel, then may we test the 
twenty-third Psalm, or any other Bible song by the scrip- 
tures ? Can the scripture settle the question whether the 
songs of the Bible are scriptural f Does the Bible give 
any directions for testing the matter of the Psalms, hymns 
and spiritual songs it enjoins us to sing? Does it ever 
hint, even, that they may not be scriptural f — Or that they 
should be scriptural t For that would imply that they 
might possibly be imscriptural. The Bible warrants very 
distinctly the conclusion that sermons may be, and often 
are, unscriptural. It permits the conclusion, too, that 
unscriptural prayers may be made by good men even. 
Christ's disciples were not free from asking amiss. Nowhere 
in the Bible is there shadow of hint that the Christian 
in observing God's ordinance of praise, doing just what he 
requires, neither more nor less, can possibly sing unscriptu- 
ral psalms, hymns or spiritual songs. If the thing were 
possible, why neither warning nor guard against it ? 

On the answers to the question propounded here, very 
much depends in the settling of the questions of an in- 
spired psalmody, as also, of inspired prayers. To facilitate 
the satisfactory answering of questions proposed, a few 
more will be pertinent. Are we sure the same line of 



28 PSALMODY. 

argument is applicable to the three different subjects of dis- 
cussion here ? That all stand or fall together ? That the 
making of our own sermons, our own prayers and our own 
praises proceed upon the same principle of analogy, and 
present parallel cases ? If so, then certainly we may make 
sermons just as the Apostles made them, to be thrown into 
the scripture crucible for trial by the noble Bereans ; and 
so may we all make psalms and prayers to be subjected to 
the same fiery ordeal. For things, in their nature and 
from their institution necessarily rising no higher than 
scriptural, must stand subordinated to the standard of 
scripture. 

SCRIPTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE DIVINE ORDINANCE OF 
PREACHING THE WORD. 

The scriptural elements essential to the ordinance of 
preaching, will be found, even on slight examination, in 
the command and commission of Christ, the example of his 
own preaching — for here he was the perfect model who 
spoke as man never did — and in the examples of >the 
Apostles, and their epistolary directions. Having here 
ascertained. the essential elements of this Divine ordinance, 
we shall be able the more easily and safely to trace the 
analogy, and discover the parallel lines, if they can be 
found anywhere in all the scriptural elements essential to 
the ordinances of prayer and praise. The assumptions, in 
argument, of analogy or parallelisms, should be self-evi- 
dent, or at least, nearly so, before we make them, and with- 
out attempt at proof, proceed to build argument upon 
them. It is very easy to say, or to write — " if" as in this 
issue — " if we may make sermons, Ave may make psalms." 
Are the cases parallel? — is the first thing in order, "if" 
we are seeking truth. 

Christ gave commission to " go into all the world and 



SCRIPTURE ELEMENTS OF PRAISE. 29 

preach the gospel to every creature." "Teaching them to 
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." 
And Paul directing Timothy, says : " Preach the word." 
The words of Christ and Paul here, bear this construction 
— Go abroad, cry, proclaim by herald, speak to the people 
with the living voice. This command is explained by 
divine authority, Acts v. 20. " Go, stand and speak in the 
temple to the people, all the words of this life." This ex- 
tempore speaking the gospel as a message of good tidings 
by herald, or voice of cries, is very distinctly exemplified 
in Christ's life and ministry. Here is the perfect model. 
" He came to Nazareth — and, as his custom was, he went 
into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for 
to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of 
the prophet Esaias." " And he closed the book, and he 
gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the 
eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened 
on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this 
scripture fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, 
and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out 
of his mouth." Luke iv. 16-22. 

Inthis very circumstantial narrative of Christ's preach- 
ing in the synagogue, we have, in detail, the scriptural 
elements of his own divinely appointed ordinance. Here 
we have the time set apart for the public ministrations of 
the gospel, the Sabbath-day. We have the place for the 
public ministrations of the Sabbath, and for the preaching 
of the word, the synagogue. Here was the place for the 
reading and expounding of the law, as was long the cus- 
tom of the Jews. Here was an assembly of hearers con- 
vened to hear the word according to the order of the 
church. Here was the Book, the inspired Scriptures, 
which had been read and expounded by the ministry, time 
immemorial. Christ rose and opened that ancient roll. 
3* 



30 PSALMODY. 

The Book of God. In form he read his text, as it would 
seem, after he had announced " the place where it was 
written." It was the book of the prophet Esaias, and the 
subject of the text was himself. Having read aloud his 
text, he closed the book. In extempore address he ex- 
pounded what he had read — the sermon was preached. If 
Christ's commands and example illustrate each other, as 
they do here, then we are authorized to understand his 
meaning is, when he says in his word — " Go preach to 
every creature," that we are to do as he did at Nazareth 
in the synagogue on the Sabbath-day ; for he there preached 
the gospel. Then, obeying his command, and after his 
example, we should make the inspired word of God our 
text-book — should read that inspired word, and, according 
to the best of our ability, faithfully expound and apply 
its inspired teaching. Here we may notice that, when we 
preach according to Christ's commission and after his ex- 
ample, our text is certainly inspired, while our sermon is 
as certainly uninspired, is human and fallible and should 
be, by every hearer, brought to the test of the written 
and infallible word, and there tried as the noble Bere- 
ans tried the gospel sermons of Paul and Silas. Acts 
xvii. 11. Among all the elements of gospel sermons, ac- 
cording to the divine ordinance of preaching, inspiration 
or infallibility can find no place. Their highest attain- 
ments can reach no higher than scriptural; and then 
subordinated to the word, the only rule. So the commen- 
ded Bereans judged of the preaching of the inspired Apos- 
tle of the Gentiles. Errors in preaching have a very 
ready corrective ; since the church is well warned to be 
on her guard ; and especially, since, of divine right, all 
have the unerring standard, and the example of the Bere- 
ans to use it as a test of every sermon heard. 

The distinction betwixt the use of the so-called sermons 



SCRIPTURE ELEMENTS OF PRAISE. 31 

of the Bible, and the preaching ordained by Christ, by 
him exemplified, and by Apostles illustrated, is as broad 
as betwixt the reading and the preaching of the word. 
The use of the one is competent to all, saints and sinners, 
male and female, official and unofficial persons. The 
privilege and practice of the other are confined to the or- 
dained ministry exclusively. This ordinance is limited in 
its administrations to those ordained by the laying on of 
the hands of the Presbytery, in the name of the head of 
the church, appointing to the work of preaching uninspired 
sermons, prepared by uninspired men, without extraordi- 
nary gifts. Their work is, nevertheless, subjected to the 
scrutiny of the humblest Christian, with the law -and the 
testimony in his hand. Such is the character, and such is 
the status of the divinely appointed sermon preached by 
the ministry bearing Christ's commission. 

Do we find in all this, and in divinely appointed praise 
and prayer a parallel? Do these all proceed upon the 
same principle? Is the same line of argument applicable 
to them all ? Let us see — For here lies the pivotal point 
on which turns the whole issue involved in the question of 
a scripture psalmody. But let us again state the ques- 
tion, — " If we may make our own sermons, and must not 
confine ourselves to the very words of the inspired sermons 
of the Bible, may we not make the material of our own 
praises, and go outside of the Bible and gather composi- 
tion for the one as for the other ? Or — for we wish to 
meet fairly and fully the matter at issue — since scriptural 
sermons, fairly expounding God's law — since expositions 
unfolding the mysteries of the gospel infolded in the in- 
spired Text-Book — since thus " helping the hope " of God's 
people, all exemplify the divine ordinance of preaching 
the gospel; why not our self-composed scriptural praises, 



32 PSALMODY. 

as also our prayers, exemplify the ordinance of praise, and 
of prayer, as well ? 

We have noticed the scriptural views of inspired prayer, 
the scripture evidence on which such prayer is founded, 
and the promises securing such inspiration — the inspira- 
tion of desires. We have noticed the verbal inspiration of 
the Bible, the only inspiration for the ordinance of preach- 
ing. We have noticed that all promises in regard to the 
ordinance of praise, in fact, in spirit, in letter or in form, 
are confined to the state of the heart in singing. Or, per- 
haps, the attuning of the voice. What more ? 

Let us now trace a little the analogy, the parallelism, 
so confidently assumed — Let us carefully trace the princi- 
ple and line of argument bearing upon the ordinances of 
preaching, praise and prayer — Let us apply the principle 
to the divine command assigning the duties in regard to 
these ordinances — Let us apply the principle to the mate- 
rial furnished by divine inspiration for each work, and to 
the promises of divine aid for the performance of the work 
assigned; for in all this we shall find the lines of Bible 
teaching clear and distinct. He that runs may read, and 
the wayfaring man need not err. 

In regard to preaching sermons, the Text-Book, from 
which to preach, is furnished to the preacher by divine 
inspiration, is infallible, and cannot be the subject of 
promised aid. This Text-Book is to be preached. The 
charge is, " Preach the word." 2 Tim. iv. % " That, is 
the word of faith which we preach." Kom. x. 8. The 
work to which the preacher is ordained, is that for which 
he needs aid. That work embraces the reading and study 
of the Bible, to fit the better for expounding its teachings. 
This, too, includes rightly dividing milk and meat, to 
babes and strong men, each the portion according to the 
mind of the Master revealed in his word. Then the work 



SCRIPTURE ELEMENTS OF PRAISE. 33 

proper, for which all other is preparatory, is the discourse 
addressed by the uninspired man, with the living voice to 
sinners in the Master's name. The sermon preached by 
the uninspired man, since it may not be scriptural, may, 
of divine right, be scrutinized and tested by the law and 
the testimony, so that every noble Berean may know 
whether the things spoken be so. Indeed, to every hearer, 
the command is, " Try the spirits." " For, the spirit of 
the prophets, must be subject to the Prophets." The work 
here, for which material is furnished, and aid promised, is 
perfectly plain. To encourage in this work the presence 
of the Master is promised, " Lo, I am with you always, 
even to the end of the world." 

As the Head of the church provides something- for all 
these ordinances, as his part of prayer, of praise and of 
preaching, and in each requires of us something to be 
done, may we do God's part, or leave ours undone ? May 
we interfere with his prerogative, reserved to himself and 
delegated to none, in these divine ordinances ? May we 
go beyond his appointment in either of these? If he has 
made psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, and given them 
to us to be sung ; and has given us no encouragement, in 
any form, by command or promise, of help, to do what he 
has done, viz. : Make songs for us to sing, and has com- 
manded us to sing them, and nothing more, what is our 
work, evidently, in this ordinance? Since we are here 
examining analogies, let us see God's part in prayer: May 
we reject the Spirit's work and indite our own prayers? 
May we reject the mediation of Christ, and ask in our own 
name? May we, instead of confining ourselves to the 
promises, ask what we please and as we please ? 

In regard to the observance of the ordinance of praise, 
what is the work to which every worshipper is called? 
What is the material, by Divine inspiration, furnished by 



34 PSALMODY. 

the Head of the church for every worshipper? And what 
is the aid promised to every worshipper to qualify for the 
proper use of the material provided, and for the acceptable 
performance of the duty required f 

With these questions before our minds, and the answers 
suggested by the analogy of faith, we shall be better pre- 
pared to answer some others. 

Does the ordinance of praise require, or even contem- 
plate, the composing, penning, making of songs, the ma- 
terial for praise either for ourselves, for others, or for the 
use of the church ? Is every worshipper called to this 
work, as to the work of prayer, so that to omit it is to sin ? 
Is any worshipper so commissioned to this work f Is the 
church collective, in her courts, called to this work t Has 
any worshipper a promise of aid in this work, as in prayer, 
and as in a work to which he is called ? Have all worship- 
pers such promise? Have church judicatories such prom- 
ise*? How is it? Does any one single promise, directly 
or indirectly, expressly or impliedly, secure aid and en- 
couragement in this work? — In making songs for praise as 
in making sermons to preach ? True, there may be some 
analogy, or parallelism betwixt the text — the inspired word 
from which the sermon is to be framed, and the song God 
made and gave and appointed to be sung to his praise. 
As also, a parallelism betwixt the preaching of the sermon, 
which is the preacher's work, and the singing of the song, 
which is the worshipper's ivork of Divine appointment. 
God is the Author of both Text and Psalm. The preacher 
and worshipper, by the help of God, perform both the 
preaching and the singing as their appropriate and Di- 
vinely appointed work. And more — to both these works 
there is a call imperatively binding on the called to per- 
form, each his work ; with a woe also on all who fail to 
meet the obligation. For both these works there is need 



SCRIITURE ELEMENTS OF PRAISE. 35 

of aid from God ; and both these are ordinary duties for 
which God furnishes ordinary qualifications. For both 
these duties aid is promised ; aid for making and preach- 
ing sermons ; aid for singing praise. But, no aid promised 
or expected by any one for making a text-book, for the 
Sacred Canon is closed and all inspiration of books closed 
with it, and all work for which inspiration was ever given 
is closed also. No aid is either promised or expected for 
making Hymn-Books more than any other books scribblers 
may choose to make; inspiration for that work having 
been closed, and that work withdrawn from the church 
also. Where then, the analogies, the parallelism ? Where 
the parallelism for warranting the challenge — " If we may 
-make our own sermons, may we not make our own psalms ? " 
That there is promised aid to the ambassador of Christ 
in the preaching of the gospel, needs no further argument. 
This may here be safely assumed as conceded by all. It 
remains but to notice the fact that, in regard to worship, 
all promised aid is for the work of singing, none for the 
work of hymn-making. Here there is no need of extended 
argument. If God commands his people to do, he promises 
aid for that work required. For, " who goeth a warfare 
any time at his own charges ? " 1 Cor. ix. 7. " And as 
thy days, so shall thy strength be." Deut. xxxiii. 25. 
This is not matter of debate. Christ furnishes promised 
material beyond our resources for every work to which he 
calls us ; and all the aid needed in using that material. Is 
it not strange that — on a certain assumed hypothesis — there 
is not one single promise to aid in hymn-making, nor even 
a remote allusion to such a duty, work or privilege even, 
in all the Bible ? Is it so of any other work, duty, calling, 
privilege in regard to the worship of God? The conclu- 
sion is forestalled. Christ calls none, authorizes none, 
privileges none to prepare songs for the use of praise in 



36 PSALMODY. 

his church. This was a work equal to inspiration — equal 
to a God ; and to men it cannot be comely. These truths, 
next to self-evident, none will, or should controvert. In- 
deed, the highest assumption of any opponent known, is 
that psalm-making is a mere privilege — a Christian liberty 
in which any poet may indulge. And this whole matter 
of privilege merely inferential ; and that, too, in the mat- 
ter of the worship of God. A liberty which may be en- 
joyed at will, or may never be exercised. A liberty, of 
course, involving no one enjoying it in any responsibility, 
duty or obligation whatever. A Christian liberty and 
privilege entirely " sui generis" — none such known among 
all the Christian privileges guaranteed to fallen sinners. 
Or, if this conclusion be not accepted — if it be admitted 
that privilege does involve corresponding obligation — then 
it must follow that every one, whose Christian privilege it is 
to make psalms for the worship of God, in the ordinance of 
praise, is involved in the obligation. It is the privilege of 
every minister of the gospel to make and to preach sermons ; 
and woe to that privileged minister who will not preach the 
gospel. It is the privilege of every Christian to observe 
the ordinance of prayer, secret, social and public ; and 
woe to that Christian who will never bow the knee in 
prayer to God. It is the Christian privilege of every one 
enjoying divine revelation, and divinely prepared songs, 
with the right use of reason and his senses, to sing God's 
praise in his worship ; and woe to that privileged sinner 
who will not sing psalms in the praise of God, and so 
worship him. Then, here is the parallelism — the making 
and preaching of sermons by all who are privileged to 
preach; and the singing of God's praise by all whose 
privilege it is to sing. Here are the parallel lines ; not 
the making of sermons and making of psalms. 

Then, the parallel stands thus — God has given the ser- 



SCRIPTURE ELEMENTS OF PRAISE. 37 

mon-maker an inspired text-book out of which to make 
sermons. He has also given the church a book of inspired 
praises to be used for praising him ; not to be used for 
making a book of praises. He has commissioned and 
commanded the preacher to make, with reading and study, 
and preach sermons of his own and uninspired. This is 
his work. He has commanded his whole church — he has 
commanded all saints and sinners, too, to sing psalms to 
his praise as the work of all. Thus we find the analogies, 
the parallels, and the absence of them. Who ever tested 
the Book of Psalms — which all of s right may sing — by the 
scriptures, which every sinner may apply as the test of 
every sermon heard. 

Before closing this chapter on parallelisms, a word 
farther in regard to the essential and distinguishing ele- 
ments of the divine ordinances of prayer and praise — the 
false assumptions and the conclusions therefrom conse- 
quently false. 

Prayer has, for its very first creative and impulsive 
power, the inward operations of the Holy Spirit in the 
originating of the desires of the heart. As in regenera- 
tion, the Spirit creates a spiritual being, so in prayer, He 
creates spiritual desires. This creation of spiritual desires 
identifies with the operations of the Spirit in awakening 
into active exercise the graces of the soul, as faith, love, 
hope ; of which the Spirit is the Divine Author. Now, 
this inward impulsive power of the Spirit shapes and con- 
trols, and gives direction to all the desires of the heart, 
and all the exercises of the graces without the interven- 
tion of external objects addressing the mind through the 
external senses. We have no need for the use of the eye 
in prayer ; we close it, as if we felt its use hurtful to the 
exercise of the inward spiritual graces of the soul. We, 
for the same reason, have no need of The Book, nor of its 
4 



38 PSALMODY. 

word-signs as objects of sense to lead the mind, and choose 
for it the matter of its exercises. If ever there can be 
need for the use of The Book, in prayer, it must be in 
social prayer. But here the Spirit alone can give " one 
accord in prayer and supplication" This " accord " is se- 
cured by promise, else how could there be social prayer 
acceptable to God without " The Prayer-Book ? " Pente- 
costal times illustrate the nature of the ordinance of 
prayer, and the promise of the Spirit in giving " one 
accord" to the desires of many hearts in social prayer. 
And just here we see the fitness of previous agreement for 
concerted prayer. Matt, xviii. 19. 

These views of the nature of prayer, and of its essential 
elements, finding no parallel in the nature and ordinance 
of praise, lay a solid foundation for unanswerable argu- 
ment against " The Prayer-Book." For prayer and the 
book before the open eye are about as congenial as " vine- 
gar upon nitre." 

The principle in praise is entirely reversed , as really so 
as the locomotive is reversed by the hand of the engineer 
on the lever, reversing the operations of the motive power, 
and evolutions of the entire rotary machinery of the 
engine. The mode of the mental and spiritual operations 
in praise is changed. The mind here, with all its intel- 
lectual and active powers, is controlled by outward forms 
of things addressed to the outward senses, the eye or the 
ear, and through these to the understanding and the heart. 
Here the eye, The Book, and its words form the media and 
essential element of praise. Essential to social praise; 
since to sing with "one accord" God has ordained and 
given The Book — for how can we sing without it ? The 
very first mental and spiritual operation in the mind of 
the worshipper is produced with the sight of the ivords of 
the song stereotyped, and in the Book, before the eye, or 



SCRIPTURE ELEMENTS OF PRAISE. 39 

read out from the book, and falling upon the ear, through 
sense to the understanding, and then to the heart; not as 
in prayer, which has its beginning in the heart, where 
praise ends. In praise, ivords in the Booh are signs of 
ideas. Ideas are the images formed in the mind by the 
words, as forms or types reflecting from the Psalm its 
thoughts, sentiments, truths, as the mind of the Spirit, 
through this medium, addressed to the understanding of" 
the worshipper. In singing praise the mind is led, in all 
its powers, and in all their operations — not, as in prayer, 
with outward senses closed to all objects of sense — but, by 
tangible and visible things, acting upon the mind as a 
mirror throwing back, by its reflections, the images of 
things, from without into the soul. The soul, in its exer- 
cise in praise, must closely follow the object before the eye 
just wherever that visible moving object leads the eye — 
from verse to verse, from line to line, from word to word, 
and from thought to thought as the Spirit of the Lord 
leads by the words of the song, in The Booh. Here, all the 
feelings of the heart of the worshipper must be in corres- 
pondence with the words of the song, in the booh, put into 
the mouth, and the sentiments of the song indited by the 
Spirit put into the heart. The words make, or frame, the 
heart with which we praise. In prayer, the inspired heart 
makes, or frames, the words with which we worship. 

Here, indeed, is a parallelism ; but not where our 
friends, over the way, desire to find it. It is here. God's 
Spirit of inspiration has something to do by way of in- 
diting in both cases. The Holy Spirit, in prayer, indites 
the thoughts sent from the heart in words. These ivords 
must be subordinated to the inward inspiration of desires. 
The same Spirit, in praise, indites the words of the song,. 
which command corresponding thoughts within, formed by 
the images of the thoughts of the Spirit in the inspired 



40 PSALMODY. 

words. Images, or ideas, in the heart must here corres- 
pond to their forms in the Book. Instead, therefore, of 
making our own prayers, and our own praises as well, we 
neither can nor may make either. In the one case the 
Spirit has, by inspiration, made abundantly. In the other, 
the Spirit is promised to make by inspiring desires as 
needed for use. And this is the standing office and work 
of the Spirit in the church. Then, here we have another 
parallelism suggested, not suiting our friends, however : 
If we need inspiration, or inditing in the matter of prayer, 
why not in praise ? — and with all the difference here in 
our favor ; for prayers amiss are temporary, and may pass 
away, but hymns amiss are repeated, fixed in the book, 
and become the standing error of the church. If we must 
worship with The Book, let it be inspired. 

Another view of our friend's parallels — If making and 
using psalms, prayers and sermons, as assumed, proceed on 
the same principle, and on the same form of authority ; 
since the command to sing, to pray, to preach implies to 
make sermons, prayers and psalms ; then, we are to make 
prayers and psalms impromptu and extempore alike, and 
without the Book, as our friends tell us psalms were made 
and used, Luke xix. 38, and Acts iv. 24. This proves too 
much. Our friends will make, with pen, the hymns they 
use, and book them. Yet they "fight against the Prayer- 
Booh." Why ? Sure, Holy Mother books both ! Which 
is right ? Or do parallels diverge sometimes ? 

Again : If the command to sing implies authority to 
make the psalms, and to prepare a written manual for 
standing use in praise, as is done upon this same assumed 
authority, just as the command to preach implies authority 
to make sermons, then this will follow: If we may make 
and use a written Hymn-Book, we may make and use a 
written Prayer-Book, we may make and use a written Ser- 



SCRIPTURE ELEMENTS OF PRAISE. 41 

mon-Book. Then, like Borne and England, we may sing 
from the Book, pray from the Book, and preach from the 
Book. Perhaps Mass as well. Things equal to the same, 
are equal to one another. If praise be equal to preaching 
and prayer, then preaching and prayer are equal to praise. 
So Rome books them all. And Roman logic is right ! 

Once more : Each of these ordinances, as regards their 
administrators, has, in addition to the command and com- 
mission, specific instructions for fulfilling the commission, 
and obeying the command. And just here is where our 
brethren stumble and miss their way ; for just here lies all 
the world of difference. In each case we have first, the 
commission and command for the work. Then, to each is 
added specific instructions suited to the peculiar work. 
For each work the man of God is furnished and perfected 
by his special instructions. These instructions differ just 
as the nature and duties and work of these ordinances 
differ. The instructions of the one differ from the other, as 
the instructions of a Minister to one Foreign Court may dif- 
fer from the instructions of a Consular Agent to some other. 

These specific instructions are all, more or less, as the 
nature of the work requires, exemplified by Christ, his 
Apostles, Prophets, etc. From instructions exemplified we 
easily prove that these three ordinances are not parallel. 
Each so differs from the others, as to prove that Psalms 
must be written and booked, and that the others must not 
be. They prove that Psalms are inspired and given in 
the Book. They prove that prayer is inspired, but given 
in the heart, and may be unutterable. They prove that 
sermons are not inspired, either for heart or book ; but un- 
inspired and extempore. Such are implied in the exem- 
plified instructions for the scriptural administrations of 
these ordinances. Let these instructions be ,all carefully 
studied, as they must be before this question will be settled. 
4* 



42 PSALMODY. 

We ask a hasty glance, only, at these very instructive 
instructions. 

First, Instructions given to all commissioned to admin- 
ister these ordinances. For preparing and preaching ser- 
mons they are ample. "Give attendance to reading." 
" Meditate upon these things." " Shun not to declare all 
the counsel of God." "A workman that needeth not to be 
ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." "Strive 
not about words." " Shun babblings." "Avoid unlearned 
questions." "In meekness instructing those that oppose 
themselves." No end here — Details are so ample and so 
specific, chapters might be written without repeating speci- 
fications in the bill of instructions, as found in the Bible. 
All this, too, suggestive of the fact of the weakness and 
fallibility of those bearing the commission ; and, conse- 
quently, the propriety of bringing all their administrations 
to the standard. The treasure is committed to earthen 
vessels — men of like passions — men who, from the best 
specimens of their class, give evidence of the need of in- 
structions, and of authorized test of their ministrations. 
Peter was withstood to the face, because he was to be 
blamed. Paul and Barnabas fell out by the way; and 
when not inspired, it was possible for them to err. 

So of prayer. In how many forms are we cautioned of 
the danger of praying amiss? Here, too, space forbids 
extended specifications. How significant this prayer — ■ 
"Lord, teach us to pray." Christ did teach how to pray. 
He has given examples both for warning and for instruc- 
tion. The Pharisee's prayer. The long prayers of this 
sect. The prayer of the mother of Zebedee's children. 
Then the publican's prayer. The prayer of the thief on 
the cross. The importunate widow. Jacob's wrestling. 
But where end, with instructions for the ordinance of 
prayer? Then again — How to know that our prayers are 



SCRIPTURE ELEMENTS OF PRAISE. 43 

of the Spirit's inditing. Here, too, are Bible instructions 
for testing. The will of God revealed, according to which 
the Spirit implants desires in the heart. 

Secondly, A glance, as we pass, at the ample instruc- 
tions to hearers, for the testing of sermons and prayers. 
If the Divine instructions to hearers required implicit 
faith and obedience in everything preached — if there was 
not a single hint that sermons might be questioned or chal- 
lenged, might not this silence be suggestive, at least, of an 
inference that they might be inspired ; or, like papal bulls, 
be received as infallible ? Far otherwise are all the facts 
here. Every line of instruction to the people suggests the 
fallibility of every preacher, and of every sermon. Bear 
with us a little here, in reviewing the copious and specific 
instructions given — the masses need them. 

" Take heed how ye hear," calls up, in the very preface 
to instructions, the idea, not only of subjective scrutiny, 
but objective, as well, in regard to the sermons heard. 
" Search the scriptures," not only for eternal life, but to 
become skilled Bereans, not easily carried away by winds 
of doctrine. " Try the spirits," because the spirits of the 
prophets may not be subject to the prophets, as they ought, 
and, therefore, their sermons found wanting. Thus we 
might proceed, and fill pages with references of this kind. 
There is still a more distinct and impressive form of in- 
structions — 

Thirdly, Commended example. The Bereans "were 
more noble, in that they received the word with all 
readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether 
those things were so." These noble Bereans, applying the 
instructions for hearing, as in duty bound, searched the 
scriptures daily to know whether the sermons, preached by 
the inspired Paul and his companion Silas, were in accord- 
ance with the only infallible rule by which all sermons 



44 PSALMODY. 

should be tried by every hearer. These Bereans never 
tested, by the rule, the inspired epistles of the man whose 
sermons were put to such rigid scrutiny. Nor were they 
ever known to have thus tested their hymnology. 

The whole Bible is full of instructions to hearers of ser- 
mons, all demonstrating that the character of the essential 
elements of the ordinance of preaching presents almost a 
contrast to the character of the matter of praise as recog- 
nized in the specific instructions in regard to this ordi- 
nance. Of the ordinance of prayer, the same things are 
substantially true as of preaching. Prayer may be amiss. 
Of such, example is not wanting. We have much instruc- 
tion in regard to true prayer, and many examples illus- 
trating the character of the prayer God hears. We have 
abundant instructions hoiv to pray, and how to know 
whether our prayers have the Spirit for their Author. 
Chapters might be written on the subject of instructions 
for testing sermons and prayers. O, how fallible must onr 
sermons be at best ! And, O, how much our very tears 
and prayers need washing! How much does that man 
know of the evil of sin ; of the depth of human depravity ; 
of the deceitfulness of the heart ; of our proneness to 
err, who cannot see the need of instructions how to moke 
and to try sermons and prayers, on the ground that they 
may be poor, feeble, erring, deluding, dangerous things ? 

Fourthly, Here the inquiry is forced upon us — How of 
praise? Have we instructions here? For what? To 
what confined? Is everything plain here? Is everything 
just parallel to the instructions in regard to preaching and 
prayer? Ample instructions for singing — what to sing, 
and how to sing. All just as plain as in the matter of 
making sermons, preaching them, hearing them, testing 
them by the rule. We are instructed to sing psalms, 
hymns, songs, just as we are instructed to read and search 



SCRIPTURE ELEMENTS OF PRAISE. 45 

the scriptures. We are instructed to sing with the voice. 
"We are instructed to sing with the understanding, which 
implies the use of means to know the meaning of the mat- 
ter we sing — perhaps by our own prayerful study, and with 
the help of the ministry. We are instructed to sing with 
the heart, and to make melody in the heart to the Lord. 
How ample the instructions in regard to singing ! — ample, 
as to 'preaching or to prayer. He that runs may read. 
And why all this specific instruction in regard to preach- 
ing, praying and singing f These are cardinal ordinances. 
God is jealous of his own institutions, and of his worship. 
Another inference irresistible — sermons, prayer and singing 
may be amiss, and, therefore, the line upon line and the 
precept upon precept here. 

Besides this, a fifth fact is suggested here in connection 
with the questions above : In addition to the total want of 
instruction for making and preparing matter of praise, there 
is neither command to make psalms for praise, nor promise 
of grace, or aid, in any form, for such work, nor the shadow 
of either available on the part of any man, of any church, 
of any supreme judicatory. 

These facts and inquiries force upon the mind correspond- 
ing and logical conclusions — conclusions from which there 
is no evasion. They do shut us up to one or the other of 
the following : either, 

1. It matters not what we make for praise in the worship 
of God, or what we sing ; for, in the absence of all instruc- 
tions in regard to the matter, or making of song, we are 
without law, and cannot transgress. " Where there is no 
law there is no transgression." It is the same to God what 
psalms, hymns and spiritual songs we sing, and a matter 
of indifference who made them. This deduction lies neces- 
sarily at the foundation of the system of all uninspired 
hymn-making and singing in the formal worship of 



46 PSALMODY. 

God. This is essential to the New Testament Christian 
liberty claimed — a liberty to make and sing, according to 
our creed and conscience, in the absence of all restrictions. 
The practice of the churches, and their defenders confirm 
this conclusion. For, if the churches may make their 
hymnology a part and form of their creed, then it is in 
their own hands to be shaped according to their respective 
faith and taste. The hymns of the Calvin ist, the Arme- 
nian, the Arian, the Universalist, the Catholic, the Mor- 
mon — all alike to God — for, he permits all to make and 
sing what they please, without shadow of condition or re- 
striction ; if heart be right and music good, God is satis- 
fied, and man is pleased. 

That our brethren choose this horn of the dilemma, and 
boldly face the consequences, is proved by their own 
church deliverances, and the endorsed vindications of their 
doctrine and practice on the subject of psalmody. They 
can consistently sing what they denounce as gross error — 
and they do. Proof — 

They have denounced the Scottish version of the Book 
of Psalms, as teaching, "very serious doctrinal and his- 
torical errors;" as teaching "gross errors;" as teaching 
what " leads directly to the error of sinless perfection ; " 
as teaching what " utterly subverts the doctrine of atone- 
ment, by representing the blessed Saviour as a forced vic- 
tim to Divine justice ; " as teaching the doctrine, " that the 
soul goes down into the grave with the body ; " as teaching 
" that the human soul of our blessed Lord was thus buried 
with his body." 

And, yet, the version of the Psalms so charged, and the 
charges endorsed by Doctors of Divinity, by Theological 
Professors, by ecclesiastical bodies, venerable Synods, etc., 
has the sanction of the supreme judicatory — is sung in 
many, and may be lawfully sung in all of their churches. 



SCRIPTURE ELEMENTS OF PRAISE. 47 

They choose the position that it is Christian liberty to 
sing whatever supreme judicatory may please to sanction, 
truth or error. So they have done, so they still do. It is 
not essential that their hymns be evangelical. If their 
hearts be right, the words matter little. And if the heart 
be bad, as the Arians', it alters not, materially, the matter 
to sing a Bible Psalm. 

Why might we not as well dispense with word singing 
altogether ? Why not just sing with sound unmeaning ? — 
and with heart warmed by sound of music inspiring ? Is 
it not moving that way fast enough ? Perhaps, just held 
in check enough to save from shattering the machinery 
organic. If this first conclusion, with what logically fol- 
lows, be inadmissible, there is one other. 

2. God, himself, having amply provided, by infallible 
inspiration, Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs, to his 
own mind and after his own heart, has made no provision 
for any other. These need no instruction for testing, and 
consequently have none. Therefore, all this silence here — 
no command to make — no instructions for making — no in- 
structions for examining — no promise or encouragement in 
regard to any such Avork — demands, if the first conclusion 
be ejected, the acceptance of the second. Will our friends 
suggest any other possible ? If they cannot, and the di- 
lemma has but two horns, which will they choose ? 

And now, in concluding this chapter, may we make our 
own psalms, as we make and preach our own sermons ? If 
we perch upon the first horn, certainly. If on the second, 
we shall cling to the songs of the Bible. To God, the 
Judge, we leave the rest. 



CHAPTER III. 

REVIEW OF THE DOCTRINE OF UNINSPIRED PRAYER, 
PRAISE AND PREACHING, AND THEIR ASSUMED PARAL- 
LELISM. 

Review of a reviewer — Inspired and uninspired men placed in the same 
category — Divine inspiration and poetic genius in the same category — 
Authority of Divine inspiration weakened — Illogical comparisons — 
Mistranslations, paraphrases, etc., examined — Fallacy exposed — Ab- 
surd claims of Church prerogative — The Church passing on translations, 
or versions, not analogous to passing on Hymn-Books. 

A VERY confident writer, whose issue is perhaps the 
latest on this subject, 1866, writes thus: "The Re- 
viewer proposes a false issue, when he asks, ' Where has 
God authorized any uninspired man to prepare songs of 
praise for the church ?' Presbyterians answer, nowhere ! 
Our doctrine is, that individuals may employ the noble 
poetical talents, with which the 'Author of every good 
and perfect gift/ has endowed them in composing hymns, 
agreeably to the example in Acts iv. 24, of a song of praise 
gathered partly from Ps. 2, and partly from other portions 
of the sacred records. But ' to prepare these Psalms for 
the church,' is not the prerogative nor the privilege of 
' any uninspired man,' which Dr. P — insinuates to be the 
Presbyterian doctrine. This is the province of the church 
herself, as represented by her supreme judicatory. She 
examines, and, where found needful, amends these produc- 
tions, and then issues her sanction to their adoption in 
public worship, just as the Scottish General Assembly 
sanctioned Rouse. But, replies Dr. P — , ' There is no 
48 



UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE AND PREACHING. 49 

promise of the influences of the Holy Spirit to assist any 
man in preparing these Psalms.' But, are there not pre- 
cious and abundant promises to the church of Christ, 
that the presence of the Holy Spirit shall be with her in 
her public councils? Has he not promised to be with her 
' to the end of the world ?' And have we not at least as 
good grounds to hope for this gracious presence with the 
collective ' body of Christ,' when the church is amending 
and authorizing these songs of praise, as when uninspired 
men are explaining Rouse to their congregations, and 
putting into their hearts the sentiments which they shall 
feel when uttering the language of the paraphrase?" Pp. 
132,133. 

Our apology for making this long quotation, is that it 
contains, in a nut-shell scope, the sum of volumes of this 
same kind of " darkening counsel by words without knowl- 
edge ;" and we avail ourselves of its comprehension. It 
presents one of the strong pillars reared for tlie sustaining 
of the whole fabric of a human psalmody ; if this falls, no 
other prop can sustain it. This specimen of forcing con- 
clusions from premises where there is no logical relation, 
or analogy, so strikingly exemplifies the whole course of 
argument for uninspired hymns and prayers, we wish to 
have it before us, and before the eye of the reader, so as to 
see at once the full strength of the opponent. Let us then, 
carefully look at some of the main points of argument sup 
posed to be in the quotation before us. 

FIRST, INSPIRED AND UNINSPIRED MEN ARE PLACED IN THE 
SAME CATEGORY, IN OFFICIAL CALLING AND WORK. 

It is distinctly conceded, in the quotation above, that 

" Noivhere, has God authorized any uninspired man to 

prepare songs of praise for the church." Now, this is very 

well because it is true. But has it any kin to the next 

5 



50 PSALMODY. 

statement? "-Our doctrine is that individuals may em- 
ploy the noble poetical talents with which the ' Author of 
every good and perfect gift ' has endowed them " — unin- 
spired men here of course — " in composing hymns, agreea- 
bly to the example in Acts iv. 24, of a song of praise 
gathered partly from Ps. 2, and partly from other por- 
tions of the sacred records." That is, what Luke did, Acts 
iv. 24, the Christian poet may do. But Luke composed a 
hymn just as any Christian poet may. And as Luke did 
no more, and no less, than other inspired writers of songs, 
so every Christian poet may do, what any inspired poet 
did in writing the inspired songs of the Bible. What 
David, Asaph, Ezra, Luke did in composing and penning 
songs inspired, and recorded in the Bible, the ?minspired 
Christian poet may do. Whatever we may justly claim 
for our divinely inspired poets in the matter of composing 
praise to be sung in the worship of God, the Christian 
poet, iminspired, may claim. Inspired men have quoted, 
expounded and applied the Book of Psalms ; and have 
" gathered from other portions of the sacred record ;" they 
have expounded and applied these gatherings ; they have 
incorporated these gatherings and expositions with the 
other canonical books, all by the unquestioned authority 
of the head of the church, and by the infallible inspiration 
of the Holy Spirit. To this very work they were divinely 
called ; for this work they were divinely qualified ; in this 
work they were divinely and infallibly guided. To do 
this work, to which called, was not only their Christian 
privilege and liberty, but their incumbent and imperative 
duty, about which they could have no choice, and from 
which they could not, on peril of condemnation shrink. 
Such was the official work, to which Luke was called in 
penning Acts iv. 24. And so of all the inspired writers 
of song, whose penmanship is found in the Bible. Now, 



UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE AND PREACHING. 51 

what is the claim made for the iminspired, but otherwise 
gifted, Christian poets? Let us, from the same author, 
see: — 

" Presb} T terians plead for the use of the songs of inspira- 
tion, just as the Apostles used them. For example, There 

IS NOT A SOLITARY INSTANCE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT OF 
THE SINGING OF THE PSALMS OF DAVID IN A LITERAL 

form. On the contrary, the Apostles used the Book of 
Psalms in quite a different mode, in the only two cases in 
which they employed them in social praise. One of these 
is Luke xix. 38. The disciples took part of a verse from 
Ps. cxviii., but sung it with alterations adapted to their 
circumstances. The second case is in Acts iv. 24. The 
beginning of second Psalm is sung by Peter, John, and 
their company, then an addition, in the beginning, then a 
narrative of what David spoke, then an application to 
Herod, Pontius Pilate, etc., then an enlargement by con- 
sidering the hand of God in the whole, and finally the 
song concludes with desires suited to their circumstances. 
This is an inspired pattern for making new Testament 
Psalms. It groups together parts of the Psalms along 
with other inspired matter, just as Dr. Watts and Presby- 
terians do." Pp. 79, 80. 

Is it not true in logic, as in philosophy, that, "things 
equal to the same are equal to one another." " Dr. 
Watts and Presbyterians," — that is, the uninspired poets — 
"have no authority to prepare songs of praise for the 
church." "It is the province of the church herself as 
represented by the supreme judicatory." Yes, and " to 
examine, and, where found needful, amend these productions, 
and then issue her sanction to their adoption in public 
worship." But the authority of Luke being equal—just as 
Dr. Watts, etc." — to the authority of poets ; and the 
authority of the poets equal to the authority of Luke, in 



52 PSALMODY. 

composing Acts iv. 24, and Luke xix. 38, consequently 
neither the productions of the poets, nor the compositions 
of Luke the physician, are authorized to be sung till the 
supreme judicatory of the church "issues her sanction for 
their adoption in public worship, just as the Scottish Gen- 
eral Assembly sanctioned Rouse." This placing in the 
same category the poetic works of Luke, and the other in- 
spired poets, is about as logical as the Jew plowing with 
an ox and an ass. The inspired Luke and other inspired 
Psalm-makers, might demur here against this unequal 
yoking with uninspired scribblers. The animals are not 
just alike. Nor are the products of their pens just alike. 
But it is some relief to the uninspired poets and to the 
argument of the quotation — whether to Luke and the 
other inspired poets Ave say not — that the church preroga- 
tive comes in with its interposition. The " supreme judica- 
tory " can clothe the ass with an ox-hide ! 

Seriously — can that course be a good one, and its de- 
fence scriptural, that requires the calling, the authority, 
the place, the work of an inspired writer to be placed in 
the same category with the work of uninspired poets? 
The work of inspired poets of no more authority than the 
productions of uninspired men ? And do the inspired 
songs of the Bible stand in the same relation, of authority, 
to the church, to her judicatories, etc., and to all her wor- 
shippers, that the poetical compositions of the poets do, 
having no authority to be sung, till authorized by the 
supreme judicatory of the church? Go"d inspired holy 
men to write songs of praise, to place those songs in the 
Bible, as a part of the sacred canon, as God's word ; yet 
they were not "prepared for the church," since " this is 
the province of the church herself, as represented by her 
supreme judicatory." She examines, amends, sanctions 
their adoption in public worship." "This is an an in- 



UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE AND PREACHING. 53 

spired pattern for making New Testament Psalms. It 
groups together parts of the Psalms along with other in- 
spired matter just as Dr. Watts and Presbyterians do." 
Luke and Watts " employ the noble poetical talents with 
which the 'Author of every good and perfect gift' has 
endowed them in composing hymns, as Luke in Acts iv. 
24." After examination — amendment — ("if needed I") 
sanction by the church, Luke and Watts might use one 
another in public worship ! A curious query springs upon 
us here. Did Luke sing Acts iv. 24, in worship before 
his composition passed the " supreme judicatory of the 
church?"— "just as Dr. Watts?" Did David, Asaph, 
Isaiah, Luke, and with them the church, sing their in- 
spired songs, with or without, the sanction of the " supreme 
judicatory of the church," or, by the simple authority of 
God to sing them ? Let us hear what our author «ays in 
answer to this question : He can argue either side — Hear 
the other : 

" It is a plain dictate of common sense, that to versify 
such passages of the other scriptures, as Isa. xii. is no more 
'to make songs of praise' than to versify the one hundred 
and fifty Psalms after the manner of Rouse. Such 
sublime and beautiful portions of the sacred records are 
songs of praise already made, and whether they be found 
in the New or the Old Testament, they are admirably 
suited to the worship of God. But is it lawful to use them 
in praising God? What says the Holy Ghost by the 
writers of many of those passages ? ' Sing unto the Lord' — 
1 In that day (gospel day) shall this song be sung' — ' Sing 
unto the Lord a new song.' (Isa. xlii. 10) — But we 
think the authority of Isaiah is quite sufficient if there 
were no other." Pp. 140, 141. 

And now, will this author, or any one else plead that — 
like Watt's, or other transpired poets' productions — "The 
5* 



54 • PSALMODY. 

song of Miriam, of Moses, of Deborah, of Barak, of David, 
of Asaph, of Isaiah, of Luke, of Peter, John and their 
company," are not " already made/' or prepared for wor- 
ship, but must pass the examination and sanction of 
"supreme judicatory? The authority of inspired and 
uninspired poets to prepare praise for the use of the church 
in the worship of God, is just as unlike as authority and no 
authority. The authority of inspired poets, and the au- 
thority of supreme church judicatory, in the business of 
preparing songs of praise, for the use of the church, in the 
worship of God, are just as unlike as authority and no au- 
thority." "The authority of Isaiah" — and all other in- 
spired poets — " is quite sufficient." The authority of the 
Bible overrides all other authority : " supreme judicatory" 
to the contrary, notwithstanding. Has the author before 
us written "common sense?" himself being judge. P. 140. 

SECONDLY. — OUR AUTHOR PLANS DIVINE INSPIRATION AND 
POETICAL GENIUS IN THE SAME CATEGORY. 

One would think, at the very first glance, that to place 
in the same category, Divine inspiration, a supernatural 
gift of the Holy Spirit, and poetical genius, a merely natu- 
ral and ordinary gift, is blunder enough in the commence- 
ment of a course of argument to condemn the whole pro- 
cess, without any reference to the conclusion. But this is 
the very thing we have for argument in the quotation 
before us. This is the very assumption of the premises on 
which the logical argument is built. "Individuals may 
employ their noble poetical talents, in composing hymns, as 
Luke employed his gift of inspiration in composing Acts 
iv. 24." 

Now, we admit, "individuals may employ their noble 
poetical talents," in composing as many gospel sonnets as 
they please ; but this " may " — this if they please, utterly 



UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE AND PREACHING. 55 

fails to be like Luke's position. Look at it. Luke in- 
spired, "may" write Acts iv. 24. Luke "may employ" his 
gift of inspiration in composing and writing down, as 
moved by the Spirit, Acts iv. 24. Luke might have chosen 
not to employ his gift, not to exercise his Christian privilege, 
just as many gifted Christian poets, free to exercise their 
Christian liberty, yet choose not to do so ! " Poets, en- 
dowed by the 'Author of every good and perfect gift,' 
may, in composing hymns, gather from the Psalms, and 
from other portions of the sacred records, agreeably to the 
example of Luke, who gathered and composed, in the em- 
ployment of his good and perfect gift of inspiration, a 
song from Ps. ii. and from other portions of the sacred 
records." Luke, by inspiration, gathering from many 
portions of the Bible, composed a song of praise, which 
the church might sing in her public worship, so soon as 
her supreme judicatory should issue her sanction ! Had 
Luke chosen not to exercise his Christian privilege, not to 
employ his gift of inspiration in gathering the material 
and composing that excellent Psalm, Acts iv. 24 ; or had 
the supreme judicatory withheld her sanction, neither 
Peter, John, their company, nor Luke the writer, nor the 
church, could have enjoyed the privilege of singing in 
the public worship of God, that beautiful Psalm. For, 
" Agreeably to the example in Acts iv. 24, the poet may 
compose, by his poetical gift, hymns ; and so soon as the 
supreme judicatory of the church shall issue her sanction, 
they may be sung by the worshipping people of God, but 
not till then. And this, remember, is the very thing in- 
volved in the issue — the gifted Christian poet, by poetic 
genius, may do what Luke did, by inspiration. Such is 
the assumption. Such is the conclusion. Like the tyro, 
closing his black-board demonstration, the author of this 
argument may, with self-complacency, exclaim — " Quod 



56 PSALMODY. 

demonstrandum erat!" All this, however, is but to 
degrade divine inspiration, and to exalt ordinary poetic 
talent above its grade, to the disparagement of the 
extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit ; and so dishonor 
God. 

Thirdly. — Our author denies that the Head of the church 
inspired, qualified and apjDointed, even to compose, gather 
and arrange songs of praise for the use of the church — 
that such men did that work for the church by divine au- 
thority — that we have that work in the Bible as the pre- 
pared praise for the use of the church — as also, that 
any uninspired man may prepare songs of praise for the 
use of the church. On the other hand, he affirms that 
the preparing authority is in the church, represented 
by her supreme judicatory — that to sing a literal scrip- 
ture psalm is "a mere modern invention, an innovation 
upon both inspired and uninspired authority." That 
There is not a solitary instance in the New 
Testament, of the singino of a Psalm of David in 
a "literal" form. P. 80, etc. That "such sublime 
and beautiful portions of the sacred records — as Isa. xii. 
— are songs of praise already made, and whether they be 
found in the New or Old Testament, they are admirably 
suited to the worship of God. It would be easy to collect 
twice the number of the Psalms, of such admirable composi- 
tions." P. 140. Then follows a whole page of argument 
to establish the affirmation that it is lawful, and that we 
have authority from the word of God, to use this large 
collection of Bible songs, twice the number of the Psalms, 
in praising God. 

The labyrinth of words, employed throughout this 
model work before us, of which w r e have here given but a 
specimen in the denials and affirmations, the assumptions 
and contradictions just noticed, suggests many curious in- 



UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE AND PREACHING. 57 

quiries. We offer a very brief specimen of many that 
might very justly be made, all of which require solution, 
to make the way of truth plain. 

Had David any authority, by inspiration, to prepare 
songs of praise, for the use of the church ? Or, did he — 
like Christian poets now — only "employ his noble poetical 
talents with which the Author of every good and perfect 
gift endowed him ? And then, Avere the productions of 
his poetic genius subjected to the sanctioning authority of 
the Sanhedrim before they were ' prepared for the use of 
the church?' How was it? Had Isaiah, Asaph, Ezra, or 
any other poet or scribe of the law, any authority from the 
head of the church to compose, gather or arrange their 
own songs or the songs of others for the use of the church? 
Did Miriam, and David, and Isaiah, and Ezra — did any 
or all of those who composed, by divine inspiration, these 
songs of praise recorded in the Bible, ' twice the number 
of the Psalms,' sing their songs and Psalms in the worship 
of God, and the church with them, sing as we have them 
in the Bible, as the inspired word of God ? Or, were these 
inspired songs sung in some other uninspired, unliteral 
form, than as transmitted to us, and so in the form sung, 
lost to us? Was it proper for them to sing those songs 
' in a literal form,' since it is improper for us so to sing 
them ? How are these things ? Would it to them have 
been ' a mere modern invention and innovation, to have 
sung those songs in a literal form,' as 'made' and 'pre- 
pared ' by those inspired writers ?" Again : — 

Had Luke, or Peter, or John, or their company, au- 
thority to compose and sing Acts iv. 24-30, as we have it 
recorded " in literal form "? Or, did they so sing it with- 
out its having been submitted to a Synod of apostles and 
elders? And then, have we those seven verses of that 
beautiful song, in Acts recorded, as composed by the poet, 



58 PSALMODY. 

inspired or uninspired ; or, have we it as examined and 
sanctioned by the apostolic college ? And still farther — 
can we sing it as we find it in its " literal form," as Peter, 
and John, and their company sang it ; or, must we have it 
" altered and adapted to our circumstances," and then ex- 
amined, amended, and sanctioned by the supreme judica- 
tory before it can be "prepared" for the use of the church, 
and sung in her public worship ? 

Did the author, in writing pp. 140, 141, forget what he 
had written — pp. 80 and 132, 133? In 80, he argues that the 
Psalms were never sung in a " literal form," in New Tes- 
tament times — that the divine pattern for making New 
Testament Psalms is, by grouping as — "just as Dr. Watts 
and Presbyterians do," and as Peter, etc., did, Acts iv. 24 
— that for this way of making psalms for the use of the 
church there is "express 'Divine appointment.' " In pp. 
132, 133, he argues that poets may make and sing psalms 
as preachers may make and preach sermons — that any 
poet may compose, the supreme judicatory prepare and 
sanction, and the church sing the same — that this is the 
Presbyterian way. Yet, in p. 140, he says : " It is a plain 
dictate of common sense, that to versify such passages of 
the other scriptures, as Isa. xii., is no more "to make 
songs of praise than to versify the one hundred and fifty 
Psalms after the manner of Rouse. Such sublime and 
beautiful portions of the sacred records are songs of praise 
already made" — and whether in New or Old Testament 
are suitable to praise, and divinely authorized to be sung. 
" The authority of Isaiah is quite sufficient, if there were no 
other." Now, we may ask : 

So far as authority to compose, prepare, or sanction is 
concerned, which is the authorized w r ay — the Presbyterian 
way, or the way of Isaiah, pp. 140, 141 ? Or, had they 
one way under the Old Testament, viz. : singing in the 



UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE, AND PREACHING. 59 

" literal form " songs " already made," and another in the 
New Testament, "just as Dr. Watts and Presbyterians 
do "; and just as they say Peter, in Acts iv. 24, did? How 
are all these ? 

Again — In regard to the " multitude of the disciples " 
who sang .part of Psalm cxviii — Luke xix. 38 — "but with 
alterations adapted to the circumstances," what gifted 
poet, or which of the disciples, altered the Psalm, "just as 
Dr. Watts and Presbyterians do "? Or, did they all im- 
promptu alter in unison and sing as it came from the 
poet, whoever that may have been ? Or, did they sing it 
as sanctioned by the highest judicatory to which they were 
subordinate ? How, and by what process, did " the whole 
multitude of the disciples," on the highway, in that grand 
procession, alter and adapt to circumstances, that Psalm, 
as Watts and Presbyterians do, securing the sanction of 
"supreme judicatory"? For, we suppose the loving dis- 
ciples, right under the eye of the beloved Saviour, would 
not dare an "invention and innovation'''' by singing a 
"Psalm of David in a literal form"! Nor would the 
poetic multitude dare sing their own composition without 
the sanction of the church in the Presbyterian way ! Or, 
after all, were the " multitude of the disciples," now es- 
corting Christ in his triumphal entrance into Jerusalem, 
really holding prayer-meeting, for which they needed to 
prepare a Psalm " adapted to the circumstances "? Were 
they attending public worship and the preaching of the 
word by their Master, or some other preacher, and at the 
beginning of the service, or at its close, or both, had they — 
poor multitude, without Bible or Hymnal, really just then 
and there — to make a model hymn, and in a model way, 
"just as Dr. Watts and Presbyterians do"? "This is an 
inspired pattern for making New Testament Psalms") 
Just in the likeness of this pattern, did any Christian poet, 



60 PSALMODY. 

or any Christian church in the world, ever think or dream 
of making New Testament Psalms for the use of her public 
praise ? Not in one single feature of this narrative has 
any church ever attempted to copy in preparing her songs. 
That the promiscuous crowd may have shouted their 
hosannas, and huzzas in the language of the Psalm ; or, 
that they may have sung in unison words memorized, may, 
as a hypothesis, have some claim to common sense ; but 
that in that triumphal march, in the shouting of the mul- 
titude, we can find a pattern for altering and modelling Bible 
Psalms, and making New Testament songs, is germain to 
the cause for which it is used. 

And farther : We have " the song of Mary the mother 
of our Lord, and of Zacharias and Elizabeth, the song of 
the angels at the birth of Christ, and the numerous sub- 
lime hymns of praise in the Revelation." These examples 
of our author are songs and hymns, original compositions, 
and not Psalms, by "alteration, adapted to the circum- 
stances." These are not examples of " grouping together 
the Psalms along with other inspired matter, just as Dr. 
Watts and Presbyterians do," for inspired matter grouped 
with other inspired matter would be inspired matter still ; 
still the word of God ; scripture, not merely scriptural. 
To the inquiring reader some curious inquiries are very 
naturally suggested here : 

Did Mary, and Zacharias, and Elizabeth, and the an- 
gels, compose and write down their songs, as Watts and 
other gifted poets do ? And Luke finding them, did he 
write them down in his history as he found their manu- 
scripts ? Or, was Luke inspired to record so much of 
what each of these persons "said" in mere extempore 
prayer, or thanksgiving in ejaculatory form, as the Spirit 
of inspiration directed him ? If Mary and the angels, as 
gifted poets, composed and wrote their songs, did they 



UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE, AND PREACHING. 61 

submit them for the revision and sanction of the church, 
that they might be used in her public praise? Or, if theL 
songs were inspired, then, whether they or Luke penned 
them, they are scripture psalms ; and should they still be 
recomposed and made uninspired, as the hymnals are, and 
then subjected to supreme judicatory, before, by authority, 
they can be prepared and sung ? And where shall we find 
the requisite amending and preparing judicatory to fit 
angel's songs, or inspired songs, for Presbyterian praise ? 

Now, in all this assumption of " inspired pattern for 
making " songs of praise for the use of the church, where, 
in all these cases of example, so boldly paraded, is there 
one single parallel line or point? If the Head of the 
church, by inspiring holy men ; if, by his Spirit inditing 
to them songs of praise ; if, by giving to his church, 
through those inspired men, inspired songs of praise per- 
fectly adapted to that end, did not prepare and authorize 
for the use of the church in her public praise, then there 
is no authority in the church, or among men, to prepare 
songs for such use. When any theory or assumption, car- 
ried out to its legitimate consequences and conclusions, 
becomes absurd, and indeed ridiculous, it is time to aban- 
don it. But to adduce the example of the multitude, 
Luke xix. 28, in making songs of praise for the use of the 
church in the public worship of God, is simply ludicrous! 

Fourthly. — We notice, in the references to our author, 
want of logical candor, prejudicial to truth and fact. He 
tells his readers that the Presbyterian Church sanctions 
uninspired hymns, just as the Scottish General Assembly 
sanctioned Rouse. It is not charging too much to say. 
that the author endeavors to make the impression that the 
uninspired hymns of his church, for which no one lavs 
claim of inspiration, are just as much inspired as the 
Scottish version of the Psalms, received and used by its 
6 



62 PSALMODY. 

friends as a translation. It is too late to attempt, by 
chicanery, to divert the intelligent reader from the real 
issue on the question of Psalmody. Scripture or scriptural, 
inspired or uninspired, are the indexical or representative 
terms too well known in this controversy to be evaded by 
a mere dixit 

That the Church of Scotland, in adopting the version of 
the Book of Psalms, still used by the churches which pro- 
fess to use a scripture psalmody, meant to be understood 
as doing just the same thing as the supreme judicatory did 
in authorizing the hymnal of the present day, is not sus- 
tained by the leading facts of their respective histories. 
The one was passing upon a metrical version, or translation, 
of one of the books of the inspired Bible, diligently com- 
paring with the original Hebrew text. The other was 
passing upon a collection of poems, without any preten- 
sions by anybody, either poets or supreme judicatory, to 
being a version of anything, far less of any book of the 
Bible. 

The Waldensian Church had chanted the Psalter, time 
immemorial. So Dr. Revel, Professor of Theology in the 
Waldensian Seminary, said in the writer's hearing twenty 
years ago. The Huguenots of France used a version of 
the Book of Psalms. The churches of the Netherlands, as 
early as the days of William the Silent, according to Mot- 
ley's History, used a Flemish version of the Psalter. The 
Geneva and Scottish churches used the Psalter, in some 
kind of a version, how good or how indifferent, we leave 
for another connection, in which the merits of respective 
translations may be noticed. In the early days of the 
Reformation, "chant the Psalter" was, to all the churches 
referred to, a familiar phrase. In the course of time the 
question of psalmody was raised among them — " chant the 
Psalter," or sing a metrical version. At the second Re- 



UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE AND PREACHING. 63 

formation — the times of the Westminster Assembly — the 
Church of Scotland, while reforming other things, en- 
deavored to secure a better version of the Book of Psalms. 
Whether introducing metrical versions, and bringing into 
use measured singing, instead of simply chanting the 
Psalter, was a wise measure, may be a question. But that 
the Church of Scotland, during her long labors in amend- 
ing the Psalms versified by Rouse, and in making new 
versions of a large portion of the book, entertained neither 
the idea of a paraphrase in the sense now generally under- 
stood, nor in the sense especially used by our friends on 
the other side here, needs no elaborate argument. Even 
yet Webster gives, for " paraphrasing," " explaining or 
translating amply and freely" So, even interpret is used for 
translating one language into another ; as when the mis- 
sionary goes first to the heathen he uses an interpreter till 
he acquires a knowledge of the native language. Argu- 
ments based on mere verbal criticism, and of words, too, 
whose use, after the lapse of a few hundred years, has suf- 
fered change, are not always conclusive. Men of candor, 
in grave religious controversy, will deal sparingly in such 
craft. 

Now, whether the Scottish Assembly succeeded, in every 
instance, in giving " The Booh of Psalms in metre ; trans- 
lated and diligently compared with the original text, and 
former translations ; more plain, smoother and agreeable to 
the text than any heretofore;" as was understood on all 
hands she professed to give ; or, whether she failed in some 
of her translations, as all translators may do, has about 
the same affinity to the issue before us as the question 
whether the version of King James is a better book than 
the Koran. King James' translation has many mistrans- 
lations ; yet it is The Bible : the recognized Word of God, 



64 PSALMODY. 

and, after all, a better book than the Koran, or Hymnal 
either. 

To test the merits of the Scottish version of the Book 
of Psalms, as a correct translation, by King James' trans- 
lation, before the unlearned masses, is simply to play small 
tricks: so, to say the supreme judicatory of the Presby- 
terian Church examines, amends, sanctions her hymnals, 
"just as the Scottish General Assembly sanctioned Rouse." 
In the one case one Assembly had to deal with "a version," 
a translation, whose ultimate test was the Hebrew text; 
and if, when amended, it was found to be a better transla- 
tion, and better and smoother poetry, it was then to be sub- 
stituted for a former and worse translation. That was the 
question and subject before the Scottish Assembly about 
two hundred and twenty-five years ago. In the other case 
the other Assembly has to do with a collection of poems : 
unlike the Book of Psalms, or any other book of the in- 
spired Bible : a collection without any ecclesiastical status 
or authority whatever, from either the church or from her 
Head ; and the use of this she sanctions, and clothes for 
the very first time with its first ecclesiastical and sacred 
swaddling-cloth. To pass upon translations is one thing : 
the translation of a book of the Bible ; to pass, as a mere 
" Publication Board," or " Committee," upon any compo- 
sition of man, is another thing. All this tilting with the 
terms " paraphrase " and "patchwork," in a question on 
the exclusive use of inspired songs in the worship of God, 
may be what its authors desire it to be, and so answer 
their end; one thing it cannot be: it cannot be an intelli- 
gent argument addressed to the understanding of an intel- 
ligent Christian who believes the Bible songs to be superior 
to all uninspired compositions, and who believes them to 
be given by the Head of the church for her praise, and 
who can find, nowhere, authority for any other. And 



UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE AND PREACHING. 65 

farther: such cannot convince intelligent Bible Psalm- 
singers, who read from opponents, thus : " Where has God 
authorized any uninspired man to prepare songs of praise 
for the church? Presbyterians answer, nowhere ! " And 
then, when they read the assumption without shadow of 
proof — the popish assumption — that the Head of the 
church has lodged the praise making power in supreme 
judicatory of the Presbyterian Church. And then, again, 
in the third place, when they read from the same pen : 
" Such sublime and beautiful portions of the sacred records, 
and whether they be found in the New or Old Testament, 
they are admirably suited to the worship of God." " But 
is it lawful to use them in praising God ? What says the 
Holy Ghost by the writers of many of those passages ? 
Sing unto the Lord : sing unto the Lord a new song." 
[Isa. xlii. 10.] " We think the authority of Isaiah is quite 
sufficient if there were no other." Such are the very posi- 
tive statements in the work before us. 

Now, as to the first and third of the above positions of 
our author, all agree : no man uninspired has authority to 
prepare songs of praise for the church ; the songs prepared 
by the Holy Spirit, recorded in the Bible, are prepared 
and authorized for the use of the church in her worship. 
The second is the assumption in dispute : the authority of 
the supreme judicatory to prepare and authorize. For the 
following reasons this assumption is false, presumptuous 
and dangerous: 

1. There is not the shadoiv of a hint of any such 
authority lodged exclusively in supreme judicatory : not a 
whit more than in any uninspired man, of whom it is so 
promptly denied. The proof offered here in support of the 
assumption is an insult to the Head of the church. He 
has promised to be with the ministry in the preaching of the 
gospel, and in administering the seals of the new covenant. 
6* 



66 PSALMODY. 

This teaching power never comes into a church judicatory. 
The ruling power only : elders, lay and ministerial, with 
parity of power, sit here together for judgment: for the ad- 
ministration of law, not for legislation. Church judica- 
tories may never dare do what Christ, the Lawgiver, has 
done for his house and kingdom. But, as the only Law- 
giver, and Author of all institutions and ordinances and 
rites of worship in his own house, he has prepared, given 
and authorized, by inspired men, songs of praise. No other 
is authorized to do any such thing. In any government, 
can any person or combination of persons do what the law 
commissioned an officer to do by commission ? Try it in 
levying and collecting taxes. Try it in regard to any legal 
and official function, and learn whether the majesty of gov- 
ernment and law be not insulted. 

2. The assumption leads necessarily to confusion, heresy, 
sectarianism and schism. By their fruits ye shall know 
them. True, this is not the only source of these evils. 
Alas! only one of many. Anomalous, indeed, that any 
sect should fail to enstamp one single distinctive feature 
upon its hymnology. And nearly as anomalous, perhaps 
far more so, should any one of them all fail to be deeply 
tainted with error. Take this one, of a hundred examples 
which have had, or now have, a place in the hymnology 
of onejof the most evangelical of the churches of this land : 

" 0, if iny soul were formed for woe, how would I vent my sighs, 
Repentance should like rivers flow, from both my streaming eye?. 
'Twas for my sins my dearest Lord hung on the accursed tree ; 
And groaned away a dying life, for thee, my soul, for thee." 

We have seen the intelligent Armenian clench both lips 
and teeth while the first line was being sung : because he 
believed God never formed any soid for woe. And how 
any Calvinist could sing these four lines with understand- 
ing and heart we know not. While it was in the book 



UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE AND PREACHING. 67 

and sung, it must have been sung by good people in igno- 
rance ; for how otherwise could sincere Christians sing a 
Saviour dying for souls formed for woe, and such souls the 
subject of the Spirit's grace, repentance t Like this: how 
many hundred hymns, in singing which, would it not be 
better to listen to the organ, and attach no meaning what- 
ever ? 

Take another example, and still worse, because it horri- 
bly mutilates and perverts a beautiful gospel portion of 
God's word to the cause of error. Not an example of ex- 
purgated composition, to whose glaring absurdity use and 
public sentiment have directed attention and final expur- 
gation ; but a par excellent, current song, exhibited as of 
specimen interest, the boast of representative advocates of 
a human psalmody : a pattern specimen of the correct ren- 
dering of the very words of divine inspiration, putting 
Rouse to the blush, and throwing the test standard itself, 
King James' Bible, in the shade. 

Here is " the correct rendering " (!) of these words found 
in the first clause of the 10th verse of the xvith Psalm : 
" For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell." " Though in 
the dust I lay my head, yet, gracious God, thou wilt not 
leave my soul forever with the dead." With the transla- 
tion we will deal in another connection. The heresy of this 
boasted pattern of human composition is now before us. 
Mark well this specimen of "the correct rendering" of the 
words of the Holy Spirit : this specimen of enchanting, 
beautiful " gospel turn," in turning David into a Christian, 
and Christ out of this Psalm, and the doctrine of the resur- 
rection of his body mystified by the murky clouds of pagan 
limbo and popish purgatory for the soul: this specimen of 
deep, dishonoring, semi-infidel thrust at the Saviour, turn- 
ing a blessed portion of his own word, testifying of himself, 
into a kind of parody upon David : this specimen of the 



68 PSALMODY. 

necessity, from consistency, and the power of error, of 
throwing a thick vail over the Psalms to hide Christ from 
the view of faith and the worshipper, and so play into the 
hand of a human psalmody. Of this specimen of " the 
correct rendering," we charge : 

1. As a pretended rendering of that portion of God's 
word, which has the resurrection of Christ's body for its 
subject, it is sheer nonsense. For, Christ had but one hu- 
man soul and one human body. At his death, that one soul 
passed immediately into glory, where there is no death. 
His one body was laid in the grave, a visible place. He 
had no third part that could go ivith the dead, the limbo or 
hades of the Pagan, or the purgatory of the Papist : the in- 
visible or separate place of the dead. 

2. It is sheer heresy. Christ's soul — David's, or the 
Christian's, by Watts — was never, at any time, even while 
his body lay in the grave, with the dead, in any orthodox, 
or evangelical sense. In this line of the Psalm there is no 
reference to Christ's soul; not one word. 

3. It is the heresy of popish purgatory. But what is 
that? Simply that limbo, that purgatory, where departed 
souls go, that separate place, neither heaven nor hell, nor 
yet the grave, where Christ's body was laid ; that place, or 
no place, with the dead. 

This idea, of the old English sense of the Hebrew sheol 
and the Greek hades, as applied by Dr. Watts to the line 
of the Psalm before us, is derived from dark pagandom, 
baptized by popery. The heathen writers, knowing noth- 
ing of the soul's future state, nothing of its immortality, 
wrote of death much like their disciples of the French in- 
fidel school. Death an eternal sleep. The dark future. 
The invisible world. The unknown state of the soid after 
death. With this state of the soul, the heathen associated 
the expressive word hades, whose very etymology settles its 



UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE AND PREACHING. 69 

application, unseen, invisible. The Christian sees, with 
the eye of sense, where the body is laid. He sees, with an 
eye of faith, where the soul goes. A paganized church, 
only, needs a third place, with the dead, where Watts' cor- 
rect rendering sends the soid, while he sings of the body : 
" Though in the dust I lay my head" — 

But, then, it is beautiful poetry. And how many pious 
souls, with characteristic sneer looking down upon the 
Psalm-singers, can, in most heavenly raptures, sing this 
very nonsense and popish heresy. Is ignorance the mother 
of devotion? It must be so ! for how can any Christian, 
with the understanding, sing this specimen? Could 
psalm-explaining set all right here? All the efforts of 
all the Doctors of Divinity in the world can make neither 
truth nor sense of it. Perhaps just here lies the secret 
charm of poetry: mystery wrapt in clouds and darkness, 
and imagination transported into the awful invisible ! 

We have neither time nor space to review all the secta- 
rian hymn-books in use among the churches, from the most 
evangelical down to the Arian, the Universalist and the 
Roman Catholic societies. In the face of them all, one 
fact is beyond controversy — the songs of the Bible are 
perfect. On the other hand, all these sectarian hymn- 
books are full of. sectarian heresy and contradiction. 
How can it be otherwise? Catholic hymns savor not of 
protestantism. Immersers will hardly fail to sing their 
darling distinctive — the efficacy of " much water." The 
Universalist will be slow to conceal from his hymnology 
his all-glorious, happy, helless future. And so through 
the whole labyrinth of sectarian hymnology from entrance 
to exit. The assumption, then, is false, presumptuous and 
dangerous, because, 

3. Against such the Head of the church has made ample 
provision. We shall be content here with the concessions 



70 PSALMODY. 

of our friends. They concede 'first, that no uninspired 
man is authorized to prepare songs for the church. They 
concede secondly, that in the sacred records are sublime 
and beautiful songs of praise already made. They concede 
thirdly, that those songs are admirably suited to the worship 
of God, whether found in New or Old Testament. They 
concede fourthly, that God has authorized these to be used 
in his worship. They concede in the fifth place, " that it 
would be easy to collect twice the number of the Psalms, of 
such admirable composition, authorized by the Head of the 
church, to be used in his worship." There are some two 
thousand four hundred verses of praise in the Book of 
Psalms. "Twice the number added" will make over 
seven thousand verses of sacred song, without error, infalli- 
ble, all admirably suited for God's worship. This collec- 
tion would make a hymn-book, all scripture, of about 
twelve hundred pieces, of six verses each. 

Now, in regard to this collection, and in view of the 
concessions referred to, some queries are suggested for the 
consideration of the friends of the unity of the body of 
Christ. 

Would not such a collection, made with judgment, be 
satisfactory to all as to its largeness and its variety of mat- 
ter? Would it not be orthodox? — orthodox enough for 
all evangelical Christians? Would it not be perfect? — 
perfect as other parts of God's word ? Would it not all 
be suitable to the worship of God? Would it not be 
superior to every other hymn-book now in use in any of 
the churches ? Might it not be a basis of union for all the 
evangelical churches, so far as psalmody is concerned? 
Would not the offer of such a hymnology, as a basis of 
union, give to the church offering it a vantage ground 
over all the other churches ? And might it not be well 
to remember that there is no creed, or term of communion, 



UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE AND PREACHING. * 71 

with any evangelical church, making the use of such a 
collection a bar to fellowship ? — " the compositions of. un- 
inspired men " only. 

Fifthly. — In this quotation before us, we have an at- 
tempt to conceal fallacy, and use it for argument. While 
it concedes that there is neither authority, nor promise of 
aid, for any uninspired man to prepare psalms, for the use 
of the church ; yet, by a little tact in transferring a prom- 
ise from its designed and specified object to another, not 
contemplated at all, the end seems to be gained. " There 
are precious and abundant promises to the church of 
Christ, that the presence of the Holy Spirit shall be with 
her public councils." Here borrowing promised presence, 
and using it for the purpose of doing her own will, in- 
stead of her Master's — in preparing psalms for the use of 
the church, a work the Master has reserved for himself; 
a work to which He has neither appointed her councils, 
nor for which promised his Spirit. Again — " Has he not 
promised to be with her ' to the end of the world ?' Here 
is borrowing promise and presence. First, from the gospel 
ministry, and giving to church councils. Second, from the 
work of preaching the gospel, to the work of ' preparing 
songs of praise for the church,' a work which ' no unin- 
spired man ' may do, as conceded. Might not our author 
as well borrow a little ' inspiration ' for the occasion, or 
Peter's key to complete the infallibility ?" 

True, Christ has commissioned and commanded the 
missionary of the cross, to go into all the world and preach 
— True, he has promised to go with the missionary in this 
work of preaching " to the end of the world ;" but is it 
true that he has commissioned and commanded church 
councils to make psalms for the church, or that he has 
promised either his Spirit or presence m any such work ? 
And has a "supreme judicatory" the right to assume the 



72 PSALMOT)Y. 

Master's work, and then beg, or borrow promises to shield 
her in her bold assumption? Or, are divine commissions 
and promises convertible, so that any promise, made to 
any other one commissioned to any specified work, may be 
claimed by church councils, when they may please to as- 
sume any work to which they have not the shadow of a 
call ? Christ has promised his presence to the dying saint 
while passing through the dark valley of the shadow of 
death ; therefore, Christ has promised his presence to the 
I>ublic councils of the church in preparing psalms for her 
use ! Christ has promised to go with the missionary to 
preach; therefore, he will be with "supreme judicatory," 
in making psalms ! What else might she not do, just as 
Romish conclave does, under covert of the missionary's 
promise — " Lo, I am with you, to the end of the world ?" 
" Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my 
church !" 

That we are not here mistaken in regard to the falla- 
cious assumption, what closes the quotation, makes evi- 
dent — "And have we not at least as good grounds to hope 
for this gracious presence with the collective ' body of 
Christ,' when the church is amending and authorizing 
these songs of praise, as when uninspired men of the Uni- 
ted Presbyterian jDersuasion are explaining Rouse to their 
congregations, and putting into their hearts the sentiments 
which they shall feel when uttering the language of the 
paraphrase?" 

A brief analysis of our author's argument here : 1. He 
assumes that the Scottish version of the Book of Psalms is 
no more scripture than Watts — nothing but Rouse's para- 
phrase — not scripture at all. 2. From this assumption 
he justly infers, that we have no right to use this version 
as we use the scriptures, making it a Text-Book from 
which to preach, just as Christ used the Book in which he 



UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE AND PREACHING. 16 

found Isa. lxi. 1, 2, from which he lectured, or expounded, 
or preached as recorded in Luke iv. 18-22. 3. He then 
concludes, that his church council is about as safe, as to 
authority, and Christ's promised presence, in making and 
authorizing psalms for the use of the church, as we are in 
using in the pulpit, ministerially, a doggerel paraphrase 
for the Bible. That is, all this claim of council is as silly 
as the silly thing to which he compares it. While this 
may do very well as disparagement of the claim of author- 
ity and the Master's presence in the work of psalm-ex- 
plaining, it destroys the high claims of councils for psalm- 
making. 

But the assumption being false, the whole argument 
built upon it, is alike false. The Scottish version is scrip- 
ture, if the Septuagint from which Christ and his Apostles 
quoted and preached is scripture. And it is too late to 
blot out the Septuagint from the long recognized list of 
translations of the Bible. And so, it is too late to cast 
off the Scottish version, a better one than the one recog- 
nized and used as scripture in Christ's and his Apostles' 
times. And yet, whenever our author, or his friends, with 
Hebrew Bible in hand, will show us that the Scottish ver-, 
sion of the psalms is a worse translation than the Septua- 
gint ; so much worse, that it cannot be recognized as scrip- 
ture, then will we consider that our ministerial expositions 
of our metrical translation of the Book of Psalms, are as 
trifling as church councils making psalms for the worship 
of God. Till this shall be done, United Presbyterian 
ministers, by virtue of their commission to expound the 
whole Word of God — as Christ from a translation — will 
continue, as ever, to expound the Book of Psalms, either 
in prose or poesy translation, or from the Hebrew text it- 
self ; for they explain sometimes from one, sometimes from 
7 



74 PSALMODY. 

another, sometimes availing themselves of all three, and 
oftentimes even of more. 

In the sixth place. — This whole claim of church preroga- 
tive here assumed, is essentially popish. It all proceeds 
on the assumption of New Testament privilege — Christian 
liberty — liberty of " supreme judicatory," to establish any- 
thing in the worship of God she pleases, not expressly for- 
bidden. 

It has ever been the glory of Protestantism, in every 
protestant country, and among all the departments of the 
protestant family, not turned back toward popery, to con- 
tend for the simplicity and purity of the worship of God, 
as instituted in his word ; and to protest against all ways 
of worship of mere human device — " any other way not 
appointed in the Word." The Catholic tells us he may 
worship God any way holy mother church ordains, if not 
forbidden ; and therefore, because the worship of the sacra- 
mental wafer is not expressly among forbidden objects, 
and because the church by prerogative, decrees this Chris- 
tian liberty, and enjoins its exercise upon her credulous 
children, the obedient son bows in homage reverently be- 
fore the body, blood and presence of the Saviour ! So, he 
can bow before the image of the " Mother of God," or the 
image of any of the saints canonized by church prerogative. 
Popery can make or unmake, objects and ways of worship, 
ordain and annul ceremonies and rites, bind and loose the 
conscience at will. 

So, too, say some protestants, as the church of England 
in her claims of ritualistic privilege, and so in the claims 
of " supreme judicatory," to make and unmake matter and 
manual of praise, and bind the same upon the church. 
"For, there are precious and abundant promises to 'The 
church of Christ,' that the presence of the Holy Spirit 
shall be with her public councils — with the collective 'body 



UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE AND PREACHING. 75 

of Christ/ when the church is amending and authorizing 
these songs of praise :" these songs of praise composed with- 
out authority by uninspired men, but to be used in the 
worship of God by authority of church council. By the 
very same assumed authority in council, Rome authorizes 
Mass. By the very same authority in council, the church 
of England authorizes her Prayer-Book, and all the 
mummery of her empty, vain ceremonies. By this same 
authority in councils of the church, presumptuously claimed, 
all the abominations of the mother of harlots, all the 
trumpery of ritualism have been introduced and sustained 
from the days of Constantine till now. No one claims 
Bible authority for either Mass, or Prayer-Book, or 
Hymnal. All sustained upon the same pious (!) plea for 
pictures, crosses, images — all to quicken and aid devotion 
in the worship of God — and their institution at the will of 
church council. " The end sanctifies the means ;" and the 
council determines what means will promote the end. 

But then, we are told that this is all done "just as the 
Scottish General Assembly sanctioned Rouse." Now we 
have seen that the Assembly, passing upon the Scottish 
version, passed upon a translation, comparing, at every 
step, "with the Hebrew text, and former translations." 
Such is never thought of in the other cases. Watts was too 
good a man, and too honest, to permit it to go to the 
world, that either his imitations or hymns were to be 
tested in their adoption by church council, by original 
text, Hebrew or Greek. 

That the church, whose business it is to see that the law 
shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from 
Jerusalem, to every people, language, and tongue, may 
supervise translations of the Bible, and authorize them as 
safe translations for her missionaries to carry to the 
heathen, whether in prose or poetry, to be read or sung, is 



76 PSALMODY. 

a matter about which there can be no dispute, and abouc 
which the question of the right of councils to authorize the 
manner and matter of worship can have as little concern. 
This preparing and sending abroad the Bible in so many 
translations is a matter bearing very little analogy, and 
certainly no parallelism, to the authorizing of written 
prayers or uninspired hymns for the use of the church in 
worship. But it is like the church preparing a metrical 
translation of the Book of Psalms for the use of her assem- 
blies worshipping in any other than the Hebrew language. 
It is analogous to the church's examining King James' 
translation, and authorizing it as such, to be used in 
families and churches. It is like authority competent, 
deciding upon translations of the Bible, whether that au- 
thority be parental for the family, ecclesiastical for the 
church, civil for the state ; or whether in all, or none of 
them, is a matter of little concern in this discussion. 
Wherever the authority lies, or whoever may exercise it, 
this is certain : it involves no such right as the making of 
a new Bible in whole or in part, for any purpose for which 
God made and gave the Bible. God prepared and gave 
the whole Bible to be read, studied, believed, and obeyed. 
Some parts of the Bible He prepared to be sung, gave to 
be sung, "authorized to be sung to his praise in worship." 
Has the translating of the Bible, and the authorizing the 
use of that translation of the Bible, as the word of God, 
anything to do with the question of divinely appointed 
worship, all of which has its appointment there ; or, with 
the right of all to use that Bible, translated, or untrans- 
lated, if they can acquire a competent knowledge of the 
original text? Is the composing of hymns a parallel t*» 
the translating of the Bible, or any part of it, into the 
English language, prose or poetry? If Christ and his 
apostles used a translation of the, Bible as the word of 



UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE AND PREACHING. 77 

God, then, may not the church send the Bible to the 
heathen translated into all their languages, without in- 
volving the authority of making a prayer-book and hymn- 
book for them, as if all proceeded upon the same principle? 
Rome assumes that the scriptures are not to be read, or 
used by the people, till authorized by the highest power in 
the church. Families, prayer-meetings, congregations, 
may not use them without church authority. Poets may 
scribble poems, but families, prayer-meetings, and congre- 
gations may not sing them till authorized by "supreme 
judicatory"; then it is the right of all to worship God 
with the hymns authorized by church council. This is the 
assumption : the right to worship, not as God has ap- 
pointed in his word, but as high church prerogative au- 
thorizes. This is popish. — Because every man, antecedent 
to any church authority, interposed, has from God the 
Bible addressed and given to himself, free to use by direct 
authority from God, the Author, for every purpose for 
which He prepared and gave it, and in every capacity and 
relation in which it is needed, and for which it is " suited " 
— to read it, search it, sing it in God's praise, worshipping 
with it in the use of its God-given songs. Every family, 
antecedently to, and independently of, any pope, or " su- 
preme judicatory," may use, read, and sing, and with it 
praise God in his worship. So of man, individually or 
socially, in all acts of worship. And more ; man, in all 
these conditions and relations, having the Bible, may by 
it test the sermons of the ministry, by it test every act 
and authorization of every judicatory, supreme and subor- 
dinate, by original right from God derived — a right with 
which neither pope nor " supreme judicatory " can in- 
terfere. 

Now, this is the sum of the issue here: God's Bible 
commands all, individually and socially, to praise him. 
7* 



78 PSALMODY. 

The family, the prayer-meeting, the congregation as- 
sembled, are commanded to sing praise. And for every 
family God has given the Bible to be used for all purposes 
for which he gave it ; to be read and to be sung in the 
worship of God at the family altar. So, to every prayer- 
meeting He has given the Bible to be used for the same 
purposes, in the social worship. And in like manner to 
every worshipping congregation for similar uses. Then, 
every family, prayer-meeting, congregation, is furnished 
by the Head of the church with " suitable " songs to be 
sung, with " authority " to sing them and with ample di- 
rections how they must be sung. Where comes in the 
church authority to interfere with any use of the Bible for 
which God authorized it? Suppose the Pope and "su- 
preme judicatory" had never authorized either the reading 
or singing of the Bible, and should never do so ; what, in 
all that, detrimental to the perfect right of the people and 
of the church to worship God, to pray, or praise, or read 
his word ? True, no man may go forth and preach this 
Bible, given to all, to be read, and searched, and sung by 
all, till authorized by the laying on of the hands of the 
Presbytery : then he may go and preach it. Then he may 
go to any gathering of the people, and to them expound 
that Bible in the name and by the authority of the Head 
of the church, whose ambassador he is ; but he is not 
obliged to carry with him written sermons, or prayer- 
books, or hymnals, prepared and authorized by either pope 
or council. He may go, carrying with him nothing from 
the church but the formal certificate, for order's sake, from 
the ordaining Presbytery, of his appointment by Christ to 
preach. He may carry his Bible, received from God's 
hand, and preach from it, and read it, and sing it with the 
worshipping people to whom he ministers, and so conduct, 
and perform, and exemplify all God's institutions of public 



UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE AND PREACHING. 79 

worship, as really and perfectly without any other papal 
or church authority enforcing ritual, prayer-book, service 
or hymnal ; and better than if supplemented and burdened 
with them all. 

Suppose, again, that the "supreme judicatory" should, 
on review of her authorized hymns, discover they were un- 
scriptural, or otherwise unpalatable, or unfashionable, and 
withdraw her authorization, and tell the people and the 
poet that they are unauthorized, and not to be sung ; and 
yet, the poet who penned them, and the people who had 
been accustomed to sing them in worship, would choose to 
sing them still — what then ? Would it be wrong to sing 
them? Don't the different sects reciprocally sing each 
other's hymns, with or without authority of "supreme ju- 
dicatory"? Or, should "supreme judicatory" please to 
re-enact her rejected hymns, would that make it right 
again to sing them? Is there any right or wrong in the 
matter to infringe a tranquil conscience? Can the "su- 
preme judicatory " make the same "thing right or wrong at 
pleasure ? 

But further, here : Had the " supreme judicatory " never 
passed upon the said hymns at all, must it have been 
wrong for the gifted poet, and the people for whom God 
gifted him, to use them in the worship of God? And had 
neither "unauthorized" poet nor authorizing "judicatory" 
moved in the matter at all, and should they never, what 
then? Would the people of God, the whole church, the 
whole w T orld, have remained, and through all time still re- 
main, without matter of social praise authorized to be 
sung in the worship of God? And must God have re- 
mained unworshipped and unsung in psalms, and hymns, 
and spiritual songs? Would not the whole Bible furnish, 
hj authority unquestioned, material enough for social 
chanting of God's praise, had he never given a gifted poet, 



80 PSALMODY. 

uninspired, to the church, or an edict of a supreme judica- 
tory? — For he has promised neither, nor is either among 
the gifts received by our ascended Lord, through which to 
endow his church with matter of praise. This claim of 
" supreme judicatory " to prepare and authorize praise for 
the use of the church is essentially usurped and popish. 



CHAPTER IV. 

EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY CLAIMED FOR 
MAKING AND USING, IN THE FORMAL WORSHIP OF GOD, 
UNINSPIRED SONGS. 

In what we ngree — In what we differ — Demand of negative proof un- 
reasonable — In the true issue our brethren affirm — Five affirmative 
Proof-Texts for the Presbyterian system of Psalmody — Our friends 
argue both sides of the true issue — Irrelevant verbal criticism — Appeal 
to reason and argument from the "stronghold" texts — Authority from 
command — A representative paragraph examined — The leading point 
of assumption,, its identities and deductions therefrom — The argument 
from scripture example — Entrance into Jerusalem, Luke xix. 38 — 
"Pattern" for Presbyterian hymn-making — The second "pattern" 
case for so making, Acts iv. 24 — Impromptu Prayer-meeting, or 
Committee on Revision of Bible Psalms — Commentators — Barnes and 
Jacobus — Reflections. 

TN examining the foundation on which our friends lay 
their claims of right to make their own psalms, hymns, 
and songs of praise, in the worship of God, we invite at- 
tention to a few preliminaries. In all successful discussion, 
having union in view, it will be well to know wherein we 
agree, and where we differ. It may be well to know, also, 
if anything can be compromised, and what. 

We all agree that we may make our own sermons, and 
preach them, without any inspiration. We all agree that 
Ave may, by the promised inditing of the Spirit, as peculiar 
to prayer, make our own impromptu prayers ; the verita- 
ble desires of the heart, without pen, or book, or manual. 
We all agree that singing with the voice, from the Book, 
many in unison, and with the understanding and heart, 
is an ordinance of religious worship, appointed in the word 

81 



82 PSALMODY. 

of God. We all agree that " the only acceptable way of 
worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so 
limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be wor- 
shipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, 
or any other way not appointed in his word." We all 
agree that the songs of the Bible, divinely inspired, not 
only may be sung in the worship of God, but that God 
prepared them, gave them, and " authorized " them to be 
sung. Thus far Ave may as well refrain from controversy. 

True, on one hand, the practice has been confined to 
the Book of Psalms, while, in principle, uncompromised in 
regard to the use of other inspired songs, suitable for 
praise. It is a remarkable feature of the providence of 
the Head of the church that has led all the psalm-singing 
churches to leave, in their organic law, the question of the 
use of " other scripture songs " an open one — one subject 
to interpretation, or application, as circumstances may 
suggest. 

One thing, however, we cannot ignore. We disclaim 
all authority and right to make and use uninspired songs 
of praise in the formal worship of God. Here we stand 
still, and feel that we cannot proceed beyond the use of 
the inspired songs of the Bible in the worship of God, till 
our brethren show us the Divine way clearly marked. 
Here they diverge from the way, or advance and leave us, 
under the assumed authority and right of making, author- 
izing, and using in worship, songs uninspired — songs that 
will incorporate, in their own way of stating them, the 
essential doctrines of the Bible, so as to operate as a test 
of orthodoxy, as far as in their judgments essentials are 
concerned. 

Our brethren seem confidently assured they have a di- 
vine warrant for composing and singing uninspired songs 
in worship. We as confidently believe they have not. 



EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY. 83 

They affirm. We deny. They proceed. We stand still. 
They affirm the way is open. And, for reasons, they invite 
us to follow. We hear and weigh their reasons. We do 
not ask them to prove negatives. We are unwilling they 
should ask us to prove what neither they nor we deny — 
authority to sing Bible songs. 

And since our brethren affirm, and offer the evidence on 
which rests the assertion of their right to make their own 
denominational Presbyterian Hymnal, it is certainly our 
privilege to cross-examine their evidence in chief. Nor will 
it be conceded here that the order of all honorable discussion 
shall be reversed by demanding of us "A divine warrant 
for restricting the praise of the church to inspired compo- 
sition." You admit we have authority thus far. And 
more : You have affirmed with us, over and over again, 
this same authority. We then beg leave to be excused 
from undertaking any such absurd task as to prove here 
what nobody denies. But we are determined to hold you 
to your affirmation of your authority to go beyond our 
common ground, and use your own homemade matter of 
praise. Nor shall we be diverted by the common-place 
chicanery of your trained controversialists, as the following 
specimen exemplifies : 

" It is true, indeed, that those texts (Col. iii. 16 ; Eph. 
v. 19,) have always been viewed as strongholds of the 
Presbyterian doctrine, viz. : that it is the duty and privi- 
lege of the church to praise God, not only with Psalms, 
but with any other hymns and songs found in the inspired 
writings (!) But our brethren have endeavored to turn 
this old Presbyterian battery against us." 

Is this not a specimen of " unfair artifice, to perplex a 
cause, and obscure the truth " ? Does this state either the 
principle or practice of the Presbyterian Church ? Don't 
they plead the right of the Presbyterian Church, in her 



84 PSALMODY. 

" supreme judicatory," to take up the poems of Watts, of 
Tom Moore, of Walter Scott, of Hannah Moore, of Mrs. 
Hemans, of Mrs. Sigourney — examine, sanction, and sing 
them to the praise of God in his worship ? And are these, 
and their like, " inspired -writings " ? Inspired writings ! 
Tom Moore inspired — or supreme judicatory! Which? 
What can our brethren mean when they foist inspiration 
into the controversy in such connection ? 

Our brethren have another side, for we are gravely told 
that 

"The principles on which the Presbyterian system of 
psalmody is formed, are substantially the same as those 
on which all exposition, especially all lecturing upon select 
passages of scripture, is conducted ; the principles on 
which ministers compose their prayers, and explain the 
Psalms; the principles on which the church assumes the 
immense responsibility of constructing her creed and cate- 
chisms ; in a word, the same principles by which the 
church, as all admit, assumes the control and direction, 
under responsibility to God, ,of every other part of Divine 
worship." 

In controversy, as in medical practice, alterations are 
sometimes, from patients' tastes, found expedient. Another 
specimen of the first side of the Presbyterian principles, 
here. Again, they say : 

" The inspired pattern for making New Testament 
Psalms is, to group together parts of the Psalms, along 
with other inspired matter, just as Dr. Watts and Presby- 
terians do." 

Now, after all this profession of " the Presbyterian sys- 
tem of psalmody" — "the duty and privilege of the church 
to praise God, not only with Psalms, but with other hymns 
and songs found in the inspired writings " — " grouping to- 
gether different parts of God's word," still, the Presbyterian 



EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY. 85 

way is, that the " gifted poet may employ his noble poeti- 
cal talents," as Watts, by converting David, or even 
Horace, into a Christian, as the inspiration of the muse 
should happen to lead ; no matter who, what, or how, if 
sanctioned by standing committee, or " supreme judica- 
tory," the composition has the Divine appointment to be 
employed in 'the worship of God. "The church assumes 
the immense responsibility," and to the word of God we 
are referred for authority in the assumption of such high 
church 'prerogative. 

FIVE TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE CLAIMED AS AUTHORITY FOR 
THE PRESBYTERIAN SYSTEM OF PSALMODY. 

These are the Texts, in the order in which they are 
used in the argument : — 

"How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, 
every one of you hath a psalm." 1 Cor. xiv. 26. 

"Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns, and 
spiritual songs." Eph. v. 19. "Let the word of Christ 
dwell in you richly in all wisdom ; teaching and admon- 
ishing one another in psalms and hymns, and spiritual 
songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." 
Col. iii. 16. On these, our brethren rest .the argument 
for Divine authority, for making and using uninspired 
songs, in the worship of God. The following are used as 
inspired pattern for making New Testament Psalms : 

" Saying, " Blessed be the King that cometh in the name 
of the Lord ; peace in heaven, and glory in the highest." 
Luke xix. 38. " And when they heard that, they lifted 
up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord thou 
art God, which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, 
and all that in them is." Acts iv. 24. 

It will be well here to fix in our minds, definitely, the 
subject under controversy ; the very thing affirmed, and to 



86 PSALMODY. 

be proved by the "stronghold" texts, to which we are 
referred as establishing " the Presbyterian doctrine." 
This is the affirmation — the church has authority to re- 
ceive uninspired songs, composed by the poets, and to pre- 
pare them as stated in these words — "She examines, and 
where found needful, amends these productions, and then 
issues her sanction to their adoption in public worship." 

Our friends here, in adjusting their stand point, from 
which to defend their stronghold, and manage their 
aggressive controversy in the use of their affirmative evi- 
dence, in the cause of their Divine right of uninspired 
praise, show how convenient it is to argue both sides, when 
in the wrong in controversy. They begin with an array 
of commentaries to settle the meaning of their leading text. 
These, too, are all of the hymn singing class, among which 
we have Dr. Hodge's, which«says: — 

" In 1 Cor. xiv. 26, where psalmon appears to mean such 
a song given by inspiration, and not one of the Psalms of 
David." " Such," adds a champion author, " is the unani- 
mous testimony of these commentators." What do these 
comment;ltors , friends of uninspired hymns mean, in giv- 
ing this interpretation of this "stronghold" text? Do 
they mean that all these psalms, hymns and songs of the 
New Testament are, indeed, "given by inspiration?" 
Certainly, there is no need of such affirmative testimony 
here. All admit their inspiration. And then, what can 
this prove? Does it prove the Divine right of Presbyte- 
rian supreme judicatories to make and authorize the use 
of uniusjiired songs, the very matter of the affirmation in 
this controversy? If Paul, by inspiration, designed to 
teach us our privilege and our duty to sing other inspired 
songs, in addition to the Book of Psalms — and this seems 
to be the sum of all the commentaries, and arguments 
drawn from this source — is it not rather negative testimony 



EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY. 87 

agninst uninspired hymns and songs ? If commanded to 
sing Bible songs? that seems to hint, at least, that we are 
not authorized to sing beyond the songs specified. If God 
specifically requires a lamb for sacrifice, and since no sacri- 
fice can be accepted without specific appointment, by what 
legerdemain is a pig authorized? Ah, we are just here 
told, " where there is no law, there is no transgression ;" 
and there is no law " restricting " to the lamb ! So holy 
mother demands proof, affirmatively, for " restricting " to 
bread and wine in the Supper, and for our want of affirma- 
tive proof in a negative issue, she asserts her right to the 
wafer, and cries, when forbidden? So, our brethren, ex- 
plaining their proof-texts, tell us the psalms in question, 
which Paul commanded to be sung, were certainly inspired; 
but infer from the command their authority to make and 
sing their own uninspired songs. May not the envelope 
here, like Benjamin's sack, wrap up too much ? Joseph's 
cup was not Benjamin's corn. 

To prepare the way for the best possible use of their 
" stronghold " proof texts, a large amount of philological 
skill, in very common-place, verbal criticism, has been ex- 
pended by our friends, in making plain things dark and 
doubtful. Every available confusion has been thrown 
around the meaning of "Psalms, hymns and spiritual 
songs." And the confusion of the Septuagint is added to 
make confusion more confused. After the endurance of 
mountain labor, under the pressure of the Hebrew Titles, 
Mizmorim, Tehillim, Shirim, and the corresponding Greek, 
Psalmais, humnais, odais — added to these Tehillah, the 
singular of Tehillim — then humnas and ainesis, are yet 
added, Negineth, translated humnais, hymns, still more, odais 
pneumatikais, and ode not a spiritual song! And what! 
some four or five pages delivered! After reading the last 



88 PSALMODY.' 

page, we are as wise as we were before we waded through 
this labyrinth of words. 

Well, we do learn that the Septuagint uses different 
words for the same thing, as Asma and Oide for the 
Hebrew Shir; and also, that its use of words is not very 
reliable, though it has long held an acknowledged place 
among translations of the Bible. Another thing we learn 
by this very circuitous criticism, we are just where we were 
at the beginning of the chapter. The Psalms in question 
are proved to be veritable inspired writings. The sum of 
the painful research is given in these words : — 

" The two last terms, humnas and ode, are used by the 
Septuagint to designate other portions of the inspired 
writings; and why may not Paul have referred to those 
other hymns and songs not embraced in the Book of 
Psalms ?" Referring to the inspired songs in Isa. xlii. 10 ; 
Deut. xxxi. 19, and Deut. xxxii., it is added : " Why may 
not the Apostle have had his eye upon such humnai and 
odai, ' hymns and songs,' as these, as they are found out- 
side of the Book of Psalms? If he had reference to such 
as these, then what becomes of the argument of these 
brethren? Paul's exhortation to sing 'hymns and spirit- 
ual songs ' becomes an inspired authority for the Presby- 
terian doctrine of psalmody." 

Now, it is pretty evident, even to a tyro, that our friends 
here do pretty clearly prove something. But what? 
This is the question. Let us see. Do they not prove, or 
evidently labor to prove these : — 

1. There are, in the Bible, inspired writings, called and 
designated Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. 

2. That the Apostle Paul, in the proof-texts before us, 
did mean these vertable inspired ivritings, in his exhorta- 
tions to sing Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. 



EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY. 89 

3. That this is Divine authority, for singing the in- 
spired songs of the Bible. 

These truisms, denied by no church in the world, so far as 
we know, do not satisfy our friends ; but with a coup de grace, 
most gracefully, indeed, they close by adding : Becomes an 
inspired authority for the Presbyterian doctrine of psalmody ! 
That is — for our Presbyterian brethren, when arguing this 
question of psalmody, certainly believe their own logic — 
" the Presbyterian doctrine of psalmody," is to sing the 
inspired writings, the songs of the Bible ! Do they wish 
us to believe this logic ? Paul commands to sing inspired 
Bible songs ; therefore he authorizes Presbyterians to make 
and sing Presbyterian hymns, which they, and everybody 
else, know are not the Psalms, etc., designated by the 
apostles. 

If anything is proved by this labored appeal to verbal 
criticism, it is this simply, and nothing more : The apos- 
tle refers, not exclusively to the Book of Psalms, but to 
" other inspired songs of the Bible " as well. There is not 
even an attempt to prove more. 

APPEAL TO REASON AND ARGUMENT FROM THE " STRONG- 
HOLD " TEXTS. 

Bear with us in quoting a paragraph, embracing the 
whole argument, drawn from the first three texts, in the 
order referred to, for authority to make and sing uninspired 
hymns. 

"But it is replied that the churches of Ephesus and 
Colosse had in their possession the Psalms of David, 
and no other, therefore they would most certainly un- 
derstand the Apostle as referring to the Book of Psalms 
alone." 

On this sentence, as we pass, we remark, 1. It is not 
true that we assert, those churches had David's Psalms, 
8* 



90 PSALMODY. 

and had no other. 2. It is not true that we assert, that 
these churches certainly understood the apostle as speak- 
ing of the "Book of Psalms alone." These churches had 
the whole Old Testament, and may have understood the 
apostle as speaking of all the Psalms of the Bible, so far 
as then known to compose the psalmody of all the churches. 
It is farther affirmed : 

" But it seems to be forgotten that those churches were 
recently formed, amid a heathen population, and in heathen 
cities : books were scarce, and having to be copied by the 
hand on wax, lead, parchment or similar materials, were 
extremely expensive ; and the ability to read was by no 
means general." 

In regard to the import of this sentence, we ask the 
reader to notice, 

1. The design of the statement, as in aid of the cause of 
uninspired hymns. This is the object they have for its 
statements. 

2. These churches were formed amid illiterate brethren ; 
they had few books ; few were able to read the books they 
had; therefore, they could know little, if anything, of the 
Book of Psalms ; little of what the Jews sung in their 
worship. 

3. They had, nevertheless, extensive knowledge of unin- 
spired hymns, made by Christians, the " membership " of 
these churches, so much and so general that all would at 
once understand Paul as referring to Presbyterian hymns, 
made in the Presbyterian way: by poet and "supreme 
judicatory." 

4. Especially, notice, hoiv could they know so little of 
Bible Psalms, and so much of uninspired hymns? Does 
the Bible, reason, or cornmon sense, or history, or any- 
thing else make clear ? How f 

5. A question here : Do our brethren mean to ignore 



EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY. 91 

the fact that wherever Paul went, throughout Eastern 
Europe or Western Asia, he found synagogues, and in 
them the Bible? To ignore the fact that everywhere 
among the Jews, of those regions, the Septuagint, in the 
vernacular tongue, that in which the New Testament was 
written, the language in which these very epistles were 
written, was in use, and had been for about three hundred 
years ? Indeed ? Have we Psalm-singers " forgotten " 
that Paul's converts and organized churches were so igno- 
rant of the Bible, while all were so intimately acquainted 
with the hymn-book? Let us not forget this. It is so 
essential to an understanding of the argument here drawn 
from these stronghold texts. Of course, we should not for- 
get that Paul's converts and churches must have been like 
our hymn-singing churches now, better acquainted with 
their hymn-books than their Bibles ! To such state of 
things, or to such Christians as described, our brethren's 
theory will be very agreeable. Perhaps they understand 
the temper of their readers. What a beautiful sight! 
See those Christians wending their way to church ; each a 
hymn-book under the arm ; in the pew not a Bible. 
"Ability to read was by no means general." Of course 
they understood Paul. We w T ould not forget, dear brethren ; 
we have not "forgotten" the tendency of hymn-singing. 
We hope you wiU not forget. 

But our friends have a compensation for the want of 
books, and the want of "ability to read" them. The 
main thing in the paragraph here follows — the pivotal 
point on which their argument turns. 

"Besides; when the apostle rebukes the Corinthians as 
follows, ' Every one of you hath a Psalm ' — the common 
interpretation is, that these Psalms were the fruits of the 
gifts of the Holy Spirit, then bestowed on the membership 
of the Corinthian church. Then, why might not the same 



92 PSALMODY. 

divine influence have been found at Ephesus and Colosse ? 
And why may not Paul refer to this class of Psalms, as 
well as to those of David ? In view of the whole argu- 
ment, it appears most evident, as Dr. Hodge remarks, ' that 
not only Psalms, but hymns, as distinct compositions, also 
were employed.' As to the Septuagint use of the term, 
when Isaiah would predict the glorious triumphs of the 
gospel, he exclaims — ' Sing unto the Lord a new song 
(humnon or hymn), and his praise from the ends of the 
earth.' Chapter xlii. 10. The Greek is very expressive — 
'Hymn unto the Lord a new hymn.' The hymn immedi- 
ately follows, and though not found in 'the Book of 
Psalms,' Isaiah exhorts to sing it, including, of course, all 
similar hymns; an exhortation or command just as bind- 
ing upon the New Testament church as any requirement 
to 'sing Psalms' which is found in the book of that 
name." 

We shall not follow the order of the statements in this 
closing part of the paragraph quoted. We shall notice 
first, the least important part thrown upon our attention. 
The main points last. 

The reference to Isaiah xlii. 10, is a fair specimen of the 
use of the scripture testimony through the entire argument 
for a human psalmody. The Septuagint, translating Isaiah 
here, says — "Hymn unto the Lord a new hymn" This 
new hymn, not being found in the Book of Psalms, is, with 
" all similar " in the Bible, by command of Isaiah, to be 
sung in the New Testament churches. That is, fortunately 
the Septuagint, translating the Hebrew, shir and its cog- 
nate, says — "Hymn a new hymn;" and from the very 
sweet euphony of the sound — "Hymn a new hymn," hymn- 
singing is proved by Isaiah's command, as translated by 
the Septuagint ! 

Moreover, we are very particularly told this new hymn 



EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY. 93 

is not in the Book of Psalms, but certainly found in Isaiah, 
and that it and similar are meant. Then, Isaiah's hymns 
being inspired writings of the Bible, we seem- to have made 
one step in the progress of the argument towards proving 
the right of singing the inspired songs of the Bible outside 
the Book of Psalms. But is this even one step in the way 
of proving the divine right of a very different thing — the 
Presbyterian way of making iminspired hymns, and by 
authority of the "supreme judicatory" authorizing the 
poems of Watts, Moore, etc., to be sung ? 

Again, this little attempt to make an argument, without 
the weight of a feather, out of a mere verbal criticism, 
shows the desperate demand for some shadow of a Bible 
argument. Yes, we are told, " the Greek is very expres- 
sive!" — "Hymn a new hymn." Of what is this a transla- 
tion ? The original Hebrew, in Isa. xlii. 10, shir, the Sep- 
tuagint finds, in the opening of the Canticles, shir shirim, 
and translates by asma asmaton, " song of songs." Why 
not, to be very expressive, say — Hymn of Hymns, which is 
Solomon's? Sometimes Septuagint verbal criticism means 
silly ism! How convincing the proof for making and sing- 
ing uninspired hymns ! We are about where we started 
in seeking our brethren's Bible argument for their New 
Testament way. Beyond argument for using " other in- 
spired songs," we have not seen the shadow of testimony. 

THE LEADING POINT OF ASSUMPTION IN THIS PARAGRAPH, 
ITS IDENTITIES, AND DEDUCTIONS THEREFROM. 

Any appearance of argument, in the paragraph before 
us, is in its identifying the apostle's " rebuke," in 1 Cor. 
xiv. 26, with his command in Eph. v. 19, and Col. iii. 16. 
The Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, the objects of the 
approval and command, being of the same class — the fruits 
of the gifts of the Spirit — as the object of the " rebuke," 



94 PSALMODY. 

they were all inspired writings beyond the Book of Psalms. 
The Septuagint's very expressive translation of Isaiah fur- 
nishes the proof. Or, bringing out the concealed conclu- 
sion, as in other instances, after a circuitous travel, di- 
verting the mind from the premises, the conclusion is 
ambiguously pronounced. The process may be stated 
thus — as the apostolical church was endowed with extra- 
ordinary spiritual gifts, among which was that of enabling 
the whole membership to compose inspired songs ; the 
church now, following the example of apostolical times, 
may, in her "supreme judicatory," do what the church 
did by the gift of inspiration, authorize the use of unin- 
spired hymns, not only outside the Book of Psalms, but 
outside the inspired songs of the Bible. Can we be mis- 
taken here in stating assumption, argument or conclusion ? 
We have noticed, in chapter iii., this high church pre 
rogative, so arrogantly assumed. We shall now trace the 
process by which the conclusion is reached. In analyzing 
the process of the argument before us, we may notice — 

1. The assumption that the Psalms of 1 Cor. xiv. 26 
were inspired — they were the fruits of the extraordinary 
gifts of the Spirit. 

2. The assumption that the Psalms, hymns and spiritual 
songs of Eph. v. 19 and Col. iii. 16 were of the same class, 
inspired Psalms, "as. well as those of David." 

3. The assumption that in Eph. and Col. Paul exhorts 
to sing the songs thus composed under the Spirit of inspi- 
ration — impromptu Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, 
given by the Spirit for the occasion. 

4. The assumption that these 'examples, and Paul's com- 
mand authorize the Presbyterian way — the composition of 
uninspired poets, authorized by the prerogative of the 
"supreme judicatory" of the church. 

The question is suggested here, as in all cases of illogical 



EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY. 95 

reasoning, are the premises well laid? Is the conclusion 
warranted by the premises ? If, for premises, we have un- 
reasonable or false assumptions, and then from these we 
have forced and illogical conclusions, must not the argu- 
ment be utter failure? 

In Corinth " every one had a Psalm." Without a miracle 
how could every one have a Psalm, if every one of these 
illiterate people, as is assumed, made his own Psalm? 
But to meet the case, as on the other hand assumed — "few 
able to read " — a miracle is assumed for the occasion and 
for the argument. The gift of inspiration is given to a 
whole congregation of illiterate people — all inspired to 
make extempore Psalms, and sing them ! That cuts the 
gordian knot. Grand as the immaculate conception ! A 
miracle by which every one was full of inspired Psalms, 
overflowing, so that when the apostle admonished to 
" sing," they all understood him to mean, not to sing any- 
thing known, but, by their miraculous gift, to make for 
the occasion ; just to open their inspired lips, and all at 
once, in universal jargon, Psalms would flow in streams 
out of all their inspired mouths, each differing in matter 
and sentiment from the other ; or, why inspire all, when 
otherwise one inspired poet would have sufficed, and Paul's 
" rebuke " been avoided ? 

This is the argument : 

" Besides, when the apostle rebukes the Corinthians as 
follows: 'Every one of you hath a Psalm/ the common in- 
terpretation is, that these Psalms were the fruits of the 
gifts of the Spirit then bestowed on the membership of the 
Christian church." This being imagined and assumed in 
argument, one stretch farther of imagination beyond Avhat 
is written, and the case is made out thus : " Then, why 
might not the same Divine influence have been found at 
Ephesus and Colosse?" Of course, here, unable to fur- 



96 • PSALMODY. 

nish the shadow of an argument to prove the truth of an 
affirmation, the demand to prove a negative — "Why- 
might not?" We shall state why not in regard to both 
affirmations. God, by his Spirit, never gave any such 
gifts for any such purposes, both disgraceful and scandal- 
ous, subjecting the actors to public " rebuke/' God is not 
the Author of confusion. But this whole business of every 
one coming to the worship of God with a Psalm, as stated, 
was confusion not of God. 

We may be asked : If the Bible Psalms were brought, 
and no miraculous, or extraordinary, gifts in the case, what 
better upon this hypothesis? Would not the confusion 
have been the same, and as justly exposed to rebuke? 

We answer — 

1. This is the only reasonable hypothesis on which the 
membership could have merited " rebuke." 

2. This is the only reasonable hypothesis on which Paul 
could be justified in administering the " rebuke." 

3. On this hypothesis the Holy Spirit stands exonerated 
from all responsibility for confusion or exposure to " re- 
buke." 

The disorderly people, under wrong impulses, were alone 
to blame. They did all this through their own misguided 
and ignorant zeal. They abused the order of God's house. 
As any church members might do this, and the Holy Spirit 
not be the Author of the confusion, or of the animus that 
prompted it ! We say, the Holy Spirit did not give that 
afflatus, that gift, or fruit of such gift, that led to such dis- 
order and scandal. On the other hand, if those illiterate 
people were all under the special and extraordinary influ- 
ences of the Spirit, moved by the Spirit of inspiration, all 
at the same time, all in the same way, to act those extem- 
pore performances, the Spirit was then the Author of the 
confusion. And what business had even Paul to "rebuke" 



EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY. 97 

either the Holy Spirit or his fruits ? For, we are called 
to remember that all this is charged to " the fruits of the 
gifts of the Spirit then bestowed." "By their fruits ye 
shall know them." 

The whole argument drawn from these passages for 
hymn-making, by the entire membership of the church, 
belongs to inventive imagination, in the absence of all 
Bible argument. By the consent of all, these churches in 
question had and knew the Bible, and must have known 
the Bible Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. That they 
had any other, knew any other, or used any other, no 
mortal can furnish the shadow of affirmative proof. To 
demand of us negative proof is concession to the badness 
of the cause, affirming without evidence 

THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE EXAMPLE. 

We leave the three texts considered, from which our 
friends draw direct authority, by command, to make and 
sing uninspired hymns, and turn to their pattern texts, 
after which they make and sing them. 

Approved example is certainly a scriptural form of es- 
tablishing Divine authority. But caution is suggested 
here. Approved example for one thing, or one class of 
things, may not be good authority for a very different 
thing, or for a very different class of things. 

Bear with us in making a quotation from one of the 
latest issues of the champion of this controversy, whose 
spear-handle is like a weaver's beam, and in whose eyes 
the weapons of his antagonists are as the slingstones of 
mere boys : 

" For example, there is not a solitary instance in 

the New Testament of the singing of the Psalms of 

David in literal form. On the contrary, the Apostles 

used the Book of Psalms in quite a different mode in the 





98 



PSALMODY. 



only two cases in which they employed them in social 
praise. One of these is Luke xix. 38. The disciples took 
part of a verse from Psalm cxviii., but sung it with alter- 
ations adapted to their circumstances. The second case is 
in Acts iv. 24. The beginning of the second Psalm is 
sung by Peter, John, and their company — then an addition, 
in the beginning — then a narrative of what David sj)oke — 
then an application to Herod, Pontius Pilate, etc., — then 
an enlargement by considering the hand of God in the 
whole, and finally the song concludes with desires suited 
to their circumstances. This is an inspired pattern for 
making New Testament Psalms. It groups together parts 
of the Psalms along with other inspired matter, just as Dr. 
Watts and Presbyterians do." In another connection it 
is added — " in composing hymns, agreeably to the example 
in Acts iv. 24, of a song of praise gathered." 

It is remarkable how much dogmatical assurance we 
have from our brethren in all their efforts to furnish evi- 
dence of the truth of their leading affirmative — The Divine 
authority for making uninspired hymns for divine worship. 
The fact that fhe New Testament records no instance of 
singing " in literal form," proves that making in unliteral 
form is a divine right ! Paul and Silas sang. The record 
don't say they sung the 46th Psalm, nor quote for our 
eyes ; therefore they made a hymn for the occasion ; and 
we are gravely asked to prove they did not ! Is there not 
as much evidence that the Psalms of the Bible were sung 
in literal form, in all the instances in which singing God's 
praise in worship is referred to in the New Testament, as 
that these two are examples of hymn-making? For, in 
neither of these is there shadow of evidence that there was 
hymn-making at all. In one, not the shadow of evidence 
that there was singing, even. Of this again. 

We are here told that Watts and Presbyterians do 



EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY. 99 

"just as" apostles did in these instances. Now, we know 
certainly just what Watts and Presbyterians do ; for their 
ways and doings are before our eyes, and before the 
world. And we know, as well, they do not even attempt 
to do what the apostles did, as our friends say. Watts 
composed, by his " poetical talent," uninspired matter. He 
did not "group together Psalms and other insjnrecl matter." 
He did not pretend, even, to translate. He may have 
sometimes quoted from the Bible, as from any other book. 
But here, in the instances referred, every word of the 
Psalm, or song, or hymn, or matter composed and recorded 
by the apostles, is certainly the inspired word of God. 
Did the apostles and Watts do the same thing? We 
might leave the matter here. 

Face to face we shall meet, with our friends, these " two 
cases " of " inspired pattern." 

First, the one from Luke xix. 38. Come, now, reader, 
with us to the hill over against this scene recorded by 
Luke. Let us adjust our camera. Let us take a deliber- 
ate panorama view of that life-scene, as it passed on that 
day of Christ's entrance into Jerusalem, and that grand 
procession of apostles, and disciples, and multitudes of 
believers, and men, and women, and children, and confused 
mass of friends and the unfriendly — such a march ! Such 
an excited mass! Such a tumultuous throng and noisy 
multitude! Such, perhaps, Jerusalem never saw! 

What are they all doing ? See them, strewing palms, 
and garments all along the way ! All, all shouting huzzas 
and hosannas ! On, on moves the jubilant, shouting 
throng ! Every eye turned to the son of David. The 
multitudes before and behind, shouting at the top of their 
voices ! Lo ! Just then, some poet laureate is seen in 
conspicuous position, on some elevation, with reporter's 
apparatus, and with one wave of his poetic wand, stays 



100 PSALMODY. 

and stills the tumult and the march. Then and there, in 
time for briefness, unparalleled in the history of steno- 
graphy, he gathers from Ps. cxviii., and from various 
other passages of holy writ, arranges, and writes — as in 
those days of impromptu hymn-making, they could write 
and dispatch business — and reads out line by line, to the 
silent, listening, waiting multitude, before and behind, 
every word, and distinctly, so as to be heard by all en- 
gaged in this " social praise." — And then, after being exam- 
ined, amended and aj)proved by the Master on the colt, in 
whom, at that time, was lodged all the power of supreme 
judicatory, now, the Presbyterian way — all, all sang this 
new-made, New Testament, uninspired Psalm ! Made, too, 
just as Presbyterians do now ! An apostolical New Testa- 
ment hymn ! — Our friends say it was a Psalm ! And we 
don't know wh ether it was psalm, hymn, or song ! For 
the Bible don't tell us what it was; and our friends had 
affirmed, and promised the proof that while Psalm might 
mean inspired Psalm, yet hymn and song mean human 
composition, and here we have the example, the pattern 
for making them. — Here, made impromptu, for the occa- 
sion, and "beyond controversy, sung in social praise" 

Now, good friends, seriously, when you are done looking 
for yourselves at this pattern picture, this example for 
making uninspired hymns, by poet and supreme judicatory, 
ask yourselves — Wherein are the example and copy like ? 
Does anybody believe that uninspired poets ever composed 
odes, poems, psalms, hymns, songs in any such way, in any 
such tumult, in any such circumstances, and impromptu ? 
— Out on parade, in procession and triumphal march amid 
the shouts and huzzas of a confused, moving throng? 
Instanter ? But if that w T ere not a sober, calm, thoughtful 
hymn-composing occasion, and one on Avhich the hymn- 
making multitude and apostles were not in hymn-compos- 



EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY. 101 

ing mood, what then? What is here spread out before 
our scene-contemplating view ? 

Some things were not exhibited, nor exemplified on that 
very exciting march and entrance into Jerusalem. 

1. That was not family worship ; though in such wor- 
ship some Christians do engage in social 'praise. 

2. It was not a prayer-meeting, since Christ did not, 
thus mounted, attend the upper room meetings " with the 
women, the doors being shut ;" " though Christians there 
do usually unite in social praise." 

3. It was not the Synagogue worship ; for that was not 
like a portable tent that could be pitched anywhere on a 
march like this, just at the entrance of Jerusalem. 

4. It was not the temple service; nor yet, any kind of 
religious service, or gathering where the social worship of 
God was known to be observed. It must have been some 
sui generis occasion, calling for this sui generis Presbyte- 
rian way of uninspired hymn-making, impromptu, and 
singing with the same breath ! Illustrious example ! Yes 
— to be copied to the end of the world ! 

To say that the impassioned, impromptu shouts of the 
multitude in that extraordinary triumphal entrance of 
Christ into Jerusalem, is a pattern for anything in the 
instituted ordinances of religious worship, is not only a 
trifling with religious things, but ludicrous. Let us then 
see, what did occur on that march. 

1. The occasion itself was extraordinary, and unlike 
anything in the ordinary worship of God in his church ; 
and cannot exemplify the ordinance of social praise. 

2. The multitudes, led by the excitement — or if it may 
please — the inspiration of the extraordinary occasion 
prompting to shout huzzas, were led by no one as an offi- 
cial leader in Divine worship ; their minds not solemnized, 
or even thinking of any kind of formal religious worship 



■ 



102 PSALMODY. 

at all, they were perhaps only irregularly shouting aloud 
and repeating Bible phrases memorized, or caught up one 
from another. 

3. Or, many in the multitudes may have broken out 
into singing from memory ; from these others might join in 
the song, and so shout and'sing aloud. 

4. We have here only the inspired historian's brief out- 
line of what was done, said or sung. That outline narra- 
tive, neither by Luke nor one of the other Evangelists, 
hints even that the things said or sung were composed by 
the Apostles as uninspired hymns, and then and there, as 
from their pen, for the first time repeated and sung by the 
multitude in social praise. 

5. And then — every word here recorded by Luke, 
whether psalm, hymn, or song — whether said, recited, 
vociferated or sung, is divinely inspired. It may be like 
many another thing — may be & pattern for many things — ■ 
one thing can never be said of it, with truth or good sense 
— that this is "just what Dr. "Watts and Presbyterians do," 
in making New Testament uninspired hymns and songs. 

Absolutely, neither Watts nor any Presbyterian ever 
made hymns for social praise, in any such tumultuous 
throng. Nor did any such throng ever shout out, in uni- 
son, extempore, uninspired hymns to be sung in " social 
praise ;" nor do hymns spontaneously make themselves in 
any such way ! Rather, were not every one of your hymns 
made deliberately at your desks, pen in hand, brain and 
mind composed, all their powers taxed, hushed and sub- 
dued in sober thought ? Brethren, you may as well quote 
as divine authority for uninspired hymn-making, "as 
Presbyterians do," these words of Dan. iii. 23, ' 'And these 
three men, Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego fell down." — 
We are willing to meet, with all serene gravity, every 
serious and grave argument. But when you deal in 



EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY. 103 

ludicrous fiction, don't expect unremitting long faces, or 
" put-on " gravity. 

The champion of the cause of impromptu hymn-making 
on the march, amid procession and throng, by a little 
shifting of the scene, may tell us that the disciples had this 
triumphal psalm all previously collected, compiled, 
"grouped," arranged, prepared for the occasion, and previ- 
ously adapted to the circumstances. A good beginning 
for the poetic illiterate fishermen ! And then, the learned 
Physician, Luke, only gives an outline sketch of the scenes 
and occurrences of that memorable day ; and consequently 
as the uninspired psalm was not intended for the sacred 
record, it is not extant ! 

This is about as plausible a fiction as any other invented 
to sustain the cause of this wonderful " pattern" theory of 
uninspired psalm-making, or inspired psalm-making, " as 
Presbyterians do." Since after all, as the psalm was 
grouped, in its being lost no loss can be sustained — for we 
are gravely told in these remarkable words — " This is an 
inspired pattern for making New Testament psalms. It 
groups together parts of psalms, along with other inspired 
matter, just as Dr. Watts and Presbyterians do." 

Then, there was nothing in it but what is in the Bible 
somewhere, " other inspired matter, and the cxviii. Psalm." 
Quotations from scripture, would be scripture still. Yet 
there seems to be a great loss — for here in this " pattern " 
lies the secret of the art of " using scripturally the Psalms." 
How, or on what principle, was this grouping together con- 
ducted? Inspired matter grouped from all parts of the 
Bible, and appended to the defective Psalms, not one of 
which was fit for Apostles to use " in literal forms," is, 
in these "two cases" only, found in the New Testament. 
And now, the very pattern itself lost ! Only a meagre 
sketch of some of its parts extant I Lost ! Like the Lost 



104 PSALMODY. 

Arts, this " pattern " psalm, lost with all the New Testa- 
ment psalms, sung at Corinth, Ephesus and Colosse, said 
to be used by the Christians for many, many centuries, 
must be a loss. 

To have exhumed from the historical debris of the ages 
this one lost psalm — this inspired and yet uninspired " pat- 
tern" psalm of which all Presbyterian psalms are exact 
copies — this psalm, which, it may be presumed, was called 
by the first singers, "Hymn of the Grand Entrance" — this 
would be the desideratum ! O, what inscrutable providence 
has hid from the ages the better psalms, these apostolical 
psalms of " pattern " value, and yet preserved so carefully 
and transmitted through the centuries these inferior Bible 
Psalms, not one of which seems to be fit for social praise, 
till their literal form shall be changed and a regenerating 
process pass over them by Presbyterian hands. Could our 
brethren sing Luke ii. 9-14, in literal form, without group- 
ing in their way ? 

THE SECOND PATTERN CASE FOR HYMN-MAKING, Acts iv. 24. 

This second case, of the only tivo, in which the Apostles 
employed the Book of Psalms " in social praise," " as Pres- 
byterians do," is the more important as it is the last wit- 
ness summoned to prove for our brethren the Divine 
authority for making and singing, in the formal worship 
of God, uninspired hymns. If this fail them, they have 
not, in a single text in the Bible, the shadow of authority 
for their doctrine on Psalmody. Let us patiently hear 
their own use of this witness on the stand. They say : 

" The beginning of the Second Psalm is sung by 
Peter, John, and their company — then an addition, 
in the beginning — then a narrative of what David 
spoke — then an application to Herod, Pontius Pilate, etc., 
then an enlargement, by considering the hand of God in 
7* 



EXAMINATION OF SCEIPTURE AUTHORITY. 105 

the whole, and finally the song concludes with desires 
suited to their circumstances. This is an inspired pattern 
for making New Testament psalms." 

This is the sum of the evidence, summed up by the skill 
of a practised tactician, in which there is not one word of 
truth as warranted by the testimony. We have seldom, if 
ever, noticed in the same narrow space more antic carrica- 
ture of the word of God, greater perversion and misappli- 
cation, more ludicrous statements and assumptions, more 
desperate torture of the plain statements of the Bible, by 
wresting and dragging them violently into the cause of a 
controversy which should never appeal to the Scriptures at 
all, but to popular feeling, popular sentiment, popular 
taste only, whence all its argument really comes. Ludi- 
crous, Ave said ; yes, for 1. To say that here is a case of 
singing an uninspired psalm, made for the occasion, by 
one or by a company, by somebody or nobody, is ludicrous. 

2. To say that is a pattern case of Presbyterian psalm- 
making, is more ludicrous still. 

3. The description given of this new ~psalm-singing and 
making at the same time, by the same company, is most lu- 
dicrous of all — is sublimely ludicrous. 

In the light of common sense, let us look after the plain 
facts, as stated in Acts iv. 24-31. We have in this pas- 
sage a plain case, plainly stated of extempore social prayer, 
just that much expressed, and not one word more, instead 
of social praise-making. Common sense reads this in this 
passage. 

1. In the affirmation stated in the very words of the 
original Greek, Epo, used in the 25th verse, means to say, 
never to sing. This verb is used in the New Testament 
about 1,000 times ; here tortured to sing. 

Didomai, in the 29th verse, which means to grant, is used 
some 400 times in the New Testament, and never once to 



106 PSALMODY. 

sing. Deamai, in the 31st verse, is used twenty-one times 
always meaning to pray, never to sing. 

2. Our translators faithfully render every word to mean 
prayer and not singing ; and, indeed, every word in the 
entire paragraph, besides those specified, to accord with 
this specific meaning. Read them, "And said," said what? 
" Lord, thou art God " — beginning with adoration. Then, 
" Now, Lord, behold," using in the body of the prayer the 
veritable language of supplication. And still more defi- 
nitely they said, " Grant unto thy servants." Then, as if 
to settle all doubt or evasion, the record, as translated, says, 
"And when they had prayed " — when they had done pray- 
ing — when prayer was over — " the place was shaken." Then, 

3. The commentators governed by common sense all 
agree that this was a case of social prayer. And, more: 
even hymn-singing commentators agree here, and we cite 
no other, Gill, Scott, Henry, The Comprehensive, etc., all 
agree with us. Not one of them gives a hint of uninspired 
hymn-making or singing. This is reserved for a desperate 
champion of the controversial quill and endorsers, and for 
the desperate cause of finding — pardon us — of inventing 
some form of Scriptural countenance for such calling. But 
what do the princes commentators of our own brethren say 
of this " example of inspired pattern " for uninspired Psalm- 
making? What do their own Barnes and their own 
Jacobus say? These are recent commentators. Their 
issues have appeared since the invention of this " pattern " 
plan of hymn-making. These authors are not visionary 
scribblers. They were not engaged in the professional 
business of wresting the Scriptures into shapeless carrica- 
tures, ludicrous enough to excite the laughter of the Infidel 
into a roar. 

Barnes says, commenting on Acts iv. 24-31 : 

" To lift up the voice to God, means simply, they prayed 



EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY. 107 

to him." Yes, "simply means," what is obvious to every 
mind free from partizan bias. At the close of the para- 
graph, he says on verse 31 : 

"And when they had prayed." — " The event which fol- 
lowed was regarded by them as an evidence that God 
heard their prayer." — " A similar instance of an answer to 
prayer by an earthquake is recorded in Acts xvi. 25." 

Jacobus on the passage begins with a caption thus : 

" The Prayer of the Whole Church." — " It is plain 
that some one of them led in prayer, in which all the as- 
sembly joined. It is said, They lifted up their voice — one 
voice leading many hearts — ' with one accord.' " Again, 
" The prayer addresses Jehovah as absolute Governor." 
Again, he says, commenting on Peter's prayer, verse 26 : 
"And grant." " They do not pray for the destruction of 
their enemies." But they pray only for what their Great 
High-Priest had asked. " This accordingly Avas granted 
them as the substance of their prayer." "All they asked 
for was the Divine signature to their work." On verse 31st : 

" Result of the Prayer." — " Immediately, and as a 
manifest answer to their prayers, not the earth only, but 
also heaven shook that place of prayer." The next chap- 
ter is, indeed, a wonderful record of what they were en- 
abled to do in direct answer to this prayer." 

What a contrast betwixt the views of these candid com- 
mentators, who had no end to subserve but simple truth, 
and the views of controversialists, whose object is to mould 
a pattern for uninspired hymn-making. A contrast as 
bold as betwixt candor and chicanery, sense and carica- 
ture, of the plain teachings of the word of God. 

The second and more ludicrous aspect of this caricature 
— this pattern case of Presbyterian hymn-making : 

Here curiosity prompts the inquiry, if not the smile, 
Who gathered, grouped, arranged, composed, penned, and 



108 PSALMODY. 

set to music this new-born psalm, in singing which a whole 
congregation joined ? And then how? The composing of 
praise, or psalm-making, by a multitude with one accord, 
is an absurdity, contrary to the very nature of the ordi- 
nance of praise. Song is composed by a single writer, 
whose pen commits to paper for the eye. Through the 
eye upon the page many minds may be brought to praise 
with one accord. This implies the pre-existence of the 
composition, its commitment to the book, then the use of 
the book. — All these forming means and mediums through 
and by which minds and voices act with one accord. Such 
composing and penning, en masse, and then concordant 
singing impromptu, could not have occurred without a 
miracle, and the miracle useless and without a moral. 
It could not be a "pattern" for Presbyterian hymn- 
making, and consequently of use to nobody. 

The third and most ludicrous aspect of this Bible cari- 
cature : The graphic descriptive analysis of the composi- 
tion, by poets in company, of this pattern psalm. Peter, 
and all the company, in the very act of lifting up their voice 
in singing the beginning of the Second Psalm (" the literal 
form " not being suitable), they all, just then, continuing 
the song, make — " then an addition to the beginning." An 
addition to what ? In the beginning of the Second Psalm 
— before the first verse or after the second ? " Then a nar- 
rative of what David spoke." But this narrative added to 
the addition added to the beginning, was the veritable two 
verses themselves of the Second Psalm, which they had just 
sung in verbal form before commencing the making of this 
New Testament, uninspired, pattern psalm. "Then the ap- 
plication to Herod, Pontius Pilate," etc. In sermons the 
application usually closes the discourse. But this was ex- 
traordinary. After the application, a little more finishing 
of this "finished" pattern composition. "Then an en- 



EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY. 109 

largement " — not large enough after application, addition 
and narrative, a finality must be appended as a voluntary 
to complete this model of all human compositions. "And, 
finally, the song concludes with desires suited to the cir- 
cumstances. This is an inspired pattern for making New 
Testament psalms." 

Now, in all this process of singing a Psalm of David, in 
amending the Psalm, in composing for present New Testa- 
ment use by a whole company — not a jar — everything in 
model unison — every brain beat with every other brain, 
and thought responded to thought, and all kept time — - 
every pen moved gracefully as one, and by one mind con- 
trolled — every voice in perfect concord, " all with one ac- 
cord." Such unison earth seldom enjoys. 

Reflections. In examining the leading testimony on 
which our brethren rely as "stronghold" evidence to estab- 
lish their Divine authority for making and singing unin- 
spired hymns, we are induced to apply more formal 
exegetical and analytical scrutiny to their proof-texts, and 
a closer examination into the character and design of this 
meeting. 

Was this impromptu meeting of Acts iv. 24, a " com- 
mittee on the Revision of the Psalms?" Was it a Chris- 
tian "singing circle," met to sing and cultivate sacred 
music? Was it a meeting suddenly called — a surprise 
meeting of the released apostles, Peter and John, and the 
company of the disciples, in which, on hearing from the 
released prisoners, they turned their gathering into an ex- 
tempore prayer-meeting? Can there be any kind of 
question in regard to the character of the meeting, or the 
leading features of its exercises ? It was simply an im- 
promptu prayer-meeting. It was not among its dreams, 
even, to make new psalms, or gather, group, and amend 
old ones. That they had, in this meeting, the other ordi- 



110 PSALMODY. 

nary exercises of the prayer-meeting, may be ; so to sup- 
pose may not be absurd. They may have read a chapter 
of the Bible. They may have sung the second Psalm. 
They may have " spoken one to another," " exhorted one 
another," as in ordinary prayer-meetings. We cannot 
prove they did not. We leave all this negative business 
to our friends, who depend on " why nots " for argument. 
We can prove they prayed, for the text affirms it. 

Jacobus, besides giving his own views, refers to the 
opinion of some other commentator, and says : 

"It is supposed that the whole church sang the 'words' 
('verbal form'?) of the Second Psalm, and prayed, and 
that then Peter made an application of the Psalm (ex- 
plained after singing ?) to their present case in the words 
here recorded" 

In the references before us, we have three distinct state- 
ments of the character of the assembly recorded in Acts 
iv. 2-4 : 

1. Our hymn-singing commentators, Barnes, Jacobus, 
etc., as we have seen, say we have " prayer " here — " The 

PRAYER OF THE WHOLE CHURCH." 

2. Jacobus hints that some have supposed it to be a 
prayer-meeting, in which they sang, talked, and prayed; 
and that in singing they used the " words of the Second 
Psalm"! 

3. Our trained champions, professional advocates, in the 
cause of an uninspired psalmody, say : " This is an in- 
spired pattern for making New Testament psalms — just as 
Dr. Watts and Presbyterians do." " There is not a single 
instance in the New Testament of the singing of a Psalm 
of David in a literal form." And then, "Only two cases 
in which they employed them in social praise." 

These hymn-singing brethren can settle their conflicting 
views among themselves. All taken together, they prove 



EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY. Ill 

nothing of authority for Presbyterian hymn-making; 
rather, they give damaging hints, neutralizing the whole 
probation. To sing a Psalm of David, and to sing the 
very "words" thereof — to sing the veritable "verbal 
form " — is to look, at least a little, toward inspired psalm- 
singing in early New Testament times. This they did not 
mean to prove by their " stronghold " evidence, affirming 
the Divine authority for a very different thing from that 
which they designed to make it speak. 

Brethren: We are not yet prepared to follow you in 
your "way" of hymn-making and singing. You must, to 
prove affirmatively in a matter of Divine worship, furnish - 
us something more rational than that the company of 
Acts iv. 24 was a mere committee on psalmody, for the 
revision of the inspired Psalms of the Bible, grouping 
inspired writings for New Testament use in the praise of 
God. 

We thank you, nevertheless. You give us the best you 
have. Till you find better we shall ask to be excused 
from following you. We shall stand still in the way of 
our God. 



CHAPTER V. 

THE SCOTTISH VERSION OP THE BOOK OP PSALMS VINDI- 
CATED AS A TRANSLATION. 

Importance attached to the question of translation — No other version 
subjected to such extreme criticism — Mistranslation defined — Charges 
of gross mistranslations examined — The First, the Sixteenth, and the 
Sixty-ninth Psalms vindicated from charges of gross mistranslation — 
Mistranslations in the prose Bible compared with the worst examples 
in Rouse — Charges of patch-work and paraphrase of Rouse examined — 
Manufactured patches charged to the account of Rouse — Specimens of 
similar and greater patches in our English version — Various classes of 
specimens — Use of Divine names, when not in the original, charged as 
a prejudice against Rouse — Superabundance of similar instances in 
our prose Bible. 

rTHE Scottish Version of the Book of Psalms has, we 
are inclined to believe, been the object of more furious 
attack, and the subject of more severe and extreme criti- 
cism, than all the translations of all the books of the Bible 
besides ; including all the hundreds of tongues into which 
they have been translated in modern times. The true 
friends of the Bible — friends of its universal circulation, 
adoption, and use in everything for which it is " suited " 
and designed — friends of its universal influence among all 
nations and tongues — will be slow to attack translations 
long sanctioned and used by the church of Christ. Here 
is a translation sanctioned, not by a committee of civilians, 
called by Royal prerogative, but by one of the most evan- 
gelical and venerable of all the Assemblies that have con- 
vened in all Christendom for two and a quarter centuries. 
Here is a translation of one of the books of the Bible, 
112 



SCOTTISH VERSION VINDICATED. 113 

prepared and sanctioned by the Church of Scotland in the 
days of her learning, her power, her glory. Rutherford, 
Henderson, Gillespie, Baillie, Douglass, were there. 
"There were giants in those days." The most evangelical 
churches of Protestantism have, ever since those golden 
days, used this translation. Some of the best scholars of 
the last two centuries have recognized this translation as 
worthy of a place among the versions of the books of the 
Bible. From one single quarter have all the fierce assaults 
come — from partizan controversialists. 

Here, and now, we design not even an attempt to ward 
off all the strokes of the enemies of this version, or offer 
for it a formal and elaborate vindication. We have here 
but little more than one point to make : Our Scottish ver- 
sion is a translation. We have, in the meantime, one word 
of caution for our friends and readers on the subject of our 
Scottish version of the Book of Psalms : Remember the 
maxim, Do not throw stones from glass houses. Or, deal 
gently and candidly with the subject of Bible translations : 
the more so in this age of missions, of Bibles, of Bible 
translation, and Bible circulation. 

In making this one -point, we have to say: It would be 
very easy to turn this weapon of severe criticism, so 
adroitly handled by the opponents of this version, upon 
the translation of King James, and in the same way, and 
so play into the hand of the Infidel, as our friends are in- 
cautiously doing. These attacks upon a scripture psalmody 
might, in manner of the opponent, have been repelled long 
since but for repugnance to the use of such weapons. 

Here is the assault and the tactics ; and here is our one 
point, to parry the blow aimed at our version. Let us state 
these. A few blemishes, of a certain kind, are found in 
this version. These are magnified, distorted, misnamed, 
and many added, not in the version at all. Then, the 



114 PSALMODY. 

whole is branded as a mere paraphrase — a piece of patch- 
work — no version at all, having no claims to be recognized 
as the word of God, as a scripture psalmody, and nothing 
more than human composition, just like Watts' imitation. 
This principle of criticism, applied by our friends to this 
version, pronounces upon our Bible in common use, and 
almost certainly upon the Bible in every language into 
which it has ever been translated. Not one of them all is 
without blemish, or mark of human error in translating. 
Our own, among the very best extant, cannot, for an 
hour, stand this ordeal of the unreasonable and monstrous 
test applied to the version in question. The Septuagint, 
the translation of the Bible used as the word of God in the 
days of Christ and his apostles, and by the church now for 
twenty centuries past, and thus far passed unchallenged — 
a worse translation than the Scottish version — could not 
for a moment stand the ordeal applied here. 

Do our friends really assume that King James' trans- 
lation is perfect, and an honest test-rule by which to 
pronounce upon every other? From this stand-point do 
they view our version as a paper wall, through which they 
can furiously dash like a wild bull, and, passing through 
it, presume they can toss it into fragments high in air? 
Gentlemen ! we live in the nineteenth century. The 
Bash an breed are extinct. You may have missed your 
calling and your coat of mail. 

For nearly a century the leading advocates of a human 
psalmody have found fault with the Book of Psalms itself, 
and on the ground of its unfitness for New Testament wor- 
ship. Even apologies for the hard sayings of Dr. Watts 
disparaging this part of the word of God, admit that a part 
of the Book of Psalms, without reference to Rouse, or any 
other version, is "adapted to sink the devotion" of Chris- 
tians at the present time. More recently controversial 



SCOTTISH VEKSIOX VINDICATED. 115 

tactics have been materially changed. While it is not so' 
popular to attack, directly, any part of the Bible, it is 
deemed comparatively safe to assail a metrical version of 
the Psalms, denouncing it as a paraphrase, a patch-work, 
no version at all, because it fails to be word for word with 
our prose translation. 

It will be well, just here, to have in our minds a definite 
understanding of the rules by which honorable men judge 
of the merits of translations ; the various kinds of transla- 
tions and mistranslations; their respective merits and 
demerits ; and especially the question, whether any trans- 
lation can, in any proper sense, be recognized as the word 
of God. 

There are various kinds and degrees of mistranslations. 
There is the gross and palpable kind, rendering a word, or 
sentence, by a word, or words, of a different or apposite 
meaning ; as Easter for Pasclia, a palpable mistranslation. 
There is a form of mistranslation where the meaning of 
the original is not fully brought out and transferred to the 
vernacular, or when more is transferred than is in the ori- 
ginal. It is a blemish in translation when it is too liberal, 
when there are too many expletives, too much expansion 
of the thought, too much repetition, or when approximating 
to comment or paraphrase. The first of these is the most 
objectionable, the last the least offensive and dangerous. 
The one leads from the way altogether, the other only 
obscures. 

Candor will admit that all translations have their 
blemishes. And, like them all, our metrical Psalms have 
theirs. This we acknowledge, and this we are laboring to 
remedy. What number, or degree, of blemishes may de- 
stroy the claims of a version to a place among recognized 
translations, it is not our place to fix the line, or adjust 
the scale. This our brethren should not have overlooked 



116. PSALMODY. 

when commencing their work of weighing versions in the 
scales of .a translation ; it was properly their work, as a 
logical conclusion, from their high assumptions of judiciary 
prerogative over versions. We have this to say here, 
however: there are many translations having a long and 
unquestioned recognition, some of which have had a place 
in the church for nearly two thousand years. Hundreds 
have, in modern times, taken rank among versions, and 
are finding their way, as the recognized word of God, to 
all nations, kindreds, peoples and tongues on earth. Have 
we been mistaken here? Are we sending the heathen 
bread, or a stone ? Are we sending them the scriptures, 
the veritable word of the living God, or patch-work and 
paraphrase only? — mere notes and comments? Let us 
know. There is a standard. Established use sometimes 
becomes a law. In applying the standard, the original 
text, shall we adopt the rule of our brethren, one that will 
sweep every translation extant from the catalogue? And 
are we to submit to such a rule, and coolly permit our ver- 
sion to be put under ban, while no better, perhaps inferior, 
hold their position unchallenged? To this we demur. 
And still more: we refuse to be tried and condemned by 
any other version of equal, or greater, defects. 

In regard to the first and gross kind of mistranslation, 
we challenge the most rigid scrutiny. 

CHARGE, AGAINST ROUSE, OF GROSS MISTRANSLATION AND 
ERROR REPELLED. 

We here assert : There is not a single instance of the 
first and gross kind of mistranslation in our Scottish ver- 
sion, from beginning to end, except in one or two, where 
the Septuagint, or our prose version, is followed. On the 
other hand, we concede that, like the Septuagint, and like 
our prose Bible, there are many instances of expletives, 



SCOTTISH VERSION VINDICATED. 117 

expansions, repetitions to excess, demonstrating that it 
might be improved. These conceded imperfections no 
more destroy its claims to a place among versions, than 
the imperfections of our common Bible prove that it is not 
the word of God. 

We now appeal to the standard. 

In the very opening of our version, and in the very first 
line of the First Psalm, we meet the charge of gross mis- 
translation. Thus — 

" The blunders of Rouse, in making David say the true 
Christian, in his experience of this life, ' hath perfect bles- 
sedness ' — which implies perfect holiness, and teaches the 
error of sinless perfection." 

We reply to this bold, yet silly, sophomoric charge in 
the language of a scholar, a divine, and hymn-singing 
commentator — Dr. J. A. Alexander, late of Princeton, 
N. J.: 

" The description opens with a kind of admiring excla- 
mation — (Oh/) the blessedness of the man! The plural 
form of the original (felicities, or happinesses'), if anything 
more than grammatical idiom, in our language may de- 
note fullness and variety of happiness, as if he had said, 
How completely happy is the man!" 

In addition, we notice, "Ashre," the word in contro- 
versy, is a noun. So it is in Rouse. An abstract noun in 
the plural form — "blessednesses." The prose Bible gives 
an adjective — "blessed," and adds an auxiliary verb — "is." 
Bishop Louth says the plural noun here is like the Latin 
vocative plural, and has the force of an adjective in the 
superlative degree ; as, O, the inexpressible blessedness of 
the man ! So, Dr. Alexander — " complete blessedness." 
Now, had Rouse said — 

" That man hath ' happiness complete/ who walketh not astray/* 



118 PSALMODY. 

would he and Alexander have been antagonistic ? Again, 
had Rouse said — 

" That man hath 'blessedness' complete, who walketh not astray," 

would there yet be antagonism ? And now, as it is, how 
broad, deep, wide, the difference betwixt complete and per- 
fect? Does complete happiness imply complete holiness 
in this life, and so teach the error of sinless perfection here ? 
Not so fast, just here, friends of Dr. Alexander! Neither 
Lowth, nor Alexander, nor Rouse, nor David, nor the Holy 
Spirit in the Psalm, teaches that " the Christian hath in 
this life " any such sinless perfection. Had not our friends 
committed the incomparably greater blunder — -first, of cast- 
ing Christ out of the Psalm, as their cause imperatively 
demands, and second, of applying descriptions of character 
as primarily belonging to the Christian, which so belong 
to " no mere man since the fall," they could not have so ex- 
posed their weakness and prejudice. More, by-and-by, of 
the spirit and principle brought to the surface here in this 
desperate attack upon this precious Psalm, in which there 
is so much of Christ, and in which our brethren, for the 
sake of consistency and their cause, must see nothing of 
the blessed Saviour. 

Attacks upon Rouse, like all other attacks upon a scrip- 
ture psalmody, will do very well for loose declamation, so 
long as there is no grappling with principle or facts. But 
when Rouse is brought face to face with other versions, 
and their defects laid open before the final test of all trans- 
lations, the whole controversy assumes a very different 
aspect. Put other translations upon their own defence, 
pressed by the claims of law and standard, and the issue 
presents a very different character. And here, in the First 
Psalm, let these unreasonable assaults upon our version 
find a striking illustration. Because the word "perfect " is 



SCOTTISH VERSION VINDICATED. 119 

there used, the charges come down like snow flakes — rather 
like hail stones — thick, and fast, and chilling. "Gross 
error in doctrine," "mistranslation" of monstrous kind, 
charges enough to freeze the heart and close the lips of 
any credulous worshipper who could for a moment give 
heed to the damaging aspersions. Few arguments against 
our version have any more sense or weight than this, there- 
fore we dwell upon it. 

Why, truly, Bouse says "perfect" and the Psalms are 
denounced. Now, if this is error in Rouse, so gross that 
his Psalms are untrue, and patch-work, what of that Book 
which reads, " Noah was a just man, and perfect in his 
generation ;" which reads, " My servant Job, a perfect and 
an upright man ;" which reads, " Mark the perfect and 
behold the upright ;" which reads, " That they may shoot 
in secret at the perfect;" which reads, "I will behave my- 
self wisely in a perfect way ;" Avhich reads, " He that walketh 
in a perfect way, he shall serve me ;" which reads, " And the 
perfect shall remain in the land;" which reads, "The 
righteousness of the perfect shall direct his way ;" which 
reads, " Let us, therefore, as many as be -perfect ;" which 
reads, " Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above," 
(as happiness, or " blessedness?"} ; which reads, " By works 
was faith made perfect ;" which reads, " If any man offend 
not in word, the same is a perfect man " (a " sinless" man ?) ; 
which reads, " Herein is our love made perfect — perfect love 
casteth out fear ?" Yes, what of the Book that scores of 
times reads "perfect?" But such is the character of the 
thing we have for argument in this very critical contro- 
versy. 

The Scottish version of this Psalm, tried by the final 
standard, and that standard in the hand of the able and 
honest scholar, will stand proudly equal with the prose ; it 
is not ours here to say, superior. To scholars it can speak 



■"^™ 



120 PSALMODY. 



for itself. Controversial critics will run to the prose, and 
be of the same opinion still. 

The Sixteenth Psalm is next most rudely assailed, and 
Rouse charged with gross doctrinal error and mistransla- 
tion. The charge here is a libel against God's word. It 
aims, not only at Rouse, but strikes at the prose and original 
text, too. It is laid on the first clause of the tenth verse, 
which in the prose reads thus, " For thou wilt not leave 
my soul in hell." The metrical version reads thus : 

" Because my soul in grave to dwell, shall not be left by thee." 

The whole weight of the vengeance of the critic turns 
upon one word differing from the prose. The latter renders 
sheol, "hell;" Rouse renders it "grave;" and on this differ- 
ence he lays the following charges : 

" (1.) That the soul goes down into the grave with the 
body. (2.) That the human soul of our blessed Lord was 
thus buried with his body. (3.) That ' his heart was glad' 
because his ' soul was not suffered to remain in the grave !' " 

Now, such senseless jargon and libel against God's word 
betrays a bad cause and a worse advocate. For, by using 
the word hell, as in the prose, and approved by our critics, 
the conclusion will be as much more damaging to the Bible, 
as hell is a worse place for the soul than the grave. Will 
these horrible conclusions follow one whit the less from 
the rendering of the prose ? Is it any better to send the 
soul with the body to hell? How much better can we 
expect from the spirit of the preface to these charges, and 
from the spirit that would approve of Watts' as the correct 
rendering? Hear our critics ; thus they read : 

" This is plainly the true sense — for how could David's 
soul (not his body) be left in the grave? Dr. Watts has 
given the correct rendering : 

" ' Though in the dust I lay my head, 

Yet, gracious God, thou wilt not leave 
My soul forever with the dead.' 



SCOTTISH VERSION VINDICATED. 121 

" How much more accurate, theologically considered, is 
this than that of House," says our critic. 

What else, except a bad cause and worse advocate, must 
of necessity find David when Christ is in the Psalm? 
What else must find some phantasm of the soul of David, 
or somebody, going to hell, or going " with the dead," in- 
stead of Christ's body going to the grave f And what else 
must put a pagan or popish construction upon the leading 
terms in the Psalm — as Nephesh and sheolf Had not the 
Holy Spirit settled the specific meaning of these words as 
used here, reckless controversialists might be excused in 
their shameful blundering. Acts iv. 31, excludes all verbal 
criticism, and closes all controversy about the verbal appli- 
cation of these terms. The resurrection of Christ's body is 
the subject. Nephesh, in the Psalm, means Christ's body, 
nothing else. It is oftened used of a dead body, a carcass. 
The following are some of the examples, as may be seen by 
turning to the Hebrew Bible — Lev. xxi. 1, 11 ; Lev. xxii. 
4 ; Num. v. 2 ; Num. vi. 6 ; Num. xix. 11, 13 ; Num. ix. 6, 
7, 10 ; Hag. ii. 13, et al. This Nephesh, dead body of Christ, 
went to the grave, the "place of the dead " — to the sheol of 
the Psalm. But Christ's soul never went to sheol, to the 
grave, to the place or "state of the dead;" nor to — worst 
and most shocking of all — "hell!" No, not for one mo- 
ment. Christ's soul went immediately to paradise — to 
glory, the place of the living. 

Sheol, here in this Psalm, by the decision of the Holy 
Spirit final, and from which there is no appeal, means the 
grave where Christ's body lay. Rouse translates it grave, 
which it means here, and nothing else. Our prose version 
renders it hell, which it don't mean here at all. Dr. Watts 
and the hymn-singers will have it, and sing it, neither hell 
nor the grave ; but the " dust" and " with the dead," for 
they make both the grave and purgatory out of it ; the one 
11 



122 PSALMODY. 

for the "head" (or body) of Christ; the other for the soul 
of Christ, thus — " My head in the dust" — " My soul with the 
dead" all from " sheol," and all " the correct rendering of 
Dr. Watts." About Watts' rendering we have here little to 
do, and care as little. The question with us is this : Is not 
our Scottish translation of sheol here better than the ren- 
dering of the prose ? This is a matter neither of debate nor 
verbal criticism. The Spirit of God, in the Acts of the 
Apostles, puts this out of the way of special pleading ; and 
to say that Rouse gives a better rendering here than the 
prose Bible, is but to use a simple truism. The champions 
who can write pages of this sort to condemn our Scottish 
version had as well not throw stones from the prose Bible, 
or from Watts' glasshouse. But stones must be thrown at 
our venerable metrical version, or the craft will be in 
danger. How much, for some desperate causes, can be 
made out of nothing ! And, by-the-way, this hyper-criticism 
is a pretty fair specimen of the charges of mistranslations 
in our version of the Psalms. 

The Sixty-ninth Psalm furnishes ground for the third 
charge of mistranslation and error. The last clause of the 
fourth verse in the prose reads thus, " Then I restored that 
which I took not away." This in the metre is rendered 
thus, " So what I took not, to render forced was I." 

This rendering is charged with " very serious doctrinal 
and historical error ;" and " to represent the atonement of 
Christ as compulsatory ;" to " overthrow the spiritual na- 
ture of the divine sacrifice ; to misrepresent the inspired 
record, and contradict the Saviour himself." And " which 
of course utterly subverts the doctrine of atonement, by 
representing the blessed Saviour as a forced victim to divine 
justice! Still we have too much charity for these brethren 
to imagine they hold these gross errors." Very kind ! We 
are not charged with the gross errors we sing ! Ah, not 



SCOTTISH VERSION VINDICATED. 123 

much harm to sing gross error; since singing is like preach- 
ing, we can test by the Bible, take the good and reject the 
bad ! 

Believing candor to be a lovely trait in the character of 
a controversialist, we state freely that we shall not defend 
the word " forced " as the best possible turn of the English 
language by which to translate the original here. We con- 
fess to the defect in both our prose Bible and our Scottish 
version. And, further, we confess there are many instances 
in which both these versions fail to select the best possible 
words in the language ; and yet they are, on the whole, 
both good translations, and both the word of God, just as 
all other fair translations of the scriptures are the word of 
God. In regard to the prose and metrical versions of this 
clause of the Psalm under consideration we remark : — 

First. According to the rule of our learned critics, the 
prose is very defective ; because it transposes the order of 
the original, the metre preserves it. Second. The prose fails 
to preserve the causative sense of the Hebrew verb, which 
is in the Hiphil or causative form. Third. The first verb, 
Gezel, is not fully rendered in either of the versions. It 
means to rob ; to take by force or violence. It is too feebly 
rendered by, " took not away;" and therefore the antithesis 
of the original is lost in the rendering of the second verb. 
The first, meaning to take by force, and the second, being 
in the causative form, requires the antithetic form in ren- 
dering the second. While forced is liable to criticism, our 
translators might have used caused with safety. 

Two forms of test may be applied here — theological and 
philological. 

Theologically, two aspects favor our version ; rendering, 
substantially — First. Christ's persecutors and murderers 
treated him as if he had been a robber, making him restore, 
as if he had by robbery appropriated what did not belong 



124 PSALMODY. 

to him, and so was forced to render what he did not rob. 
Second. Christ voluntarily bound himself in covenant to 
restore what he took not away from the law. He was, 
therefore, made under the law. He was made sin for us. 
The law recognized him as our surety, and held him bound 
for the payment of our debt. Hence he says, "Ought not 
Christ to have suffered these things ?" It was not possible 
the cup should pass from him. " Jehovah hath made to 
light on him the iniquity of us all. It was exacted, and he 
was made answerable." Isa. liii. 6, 7. 

Philologically the metrical version is substantially vindi- 
cated. Versions have to do with the meaning of words. 
These we have noticed in part. But, further, the verb 
Ashib, in the future Hiphil, together with the antithesis 
with the context, warrant the rendering in the causative 
form. With this standard authorities agree. Luther ren- 
ders thus, "Ich muss bezahlen, das ich nicht geraubet 
habe ;" that is, " I must repay what I did not rob." Here 
the idea of the Scottish version is actually embodied and 
distinctly. 

Dr. Alexander renders these words thus: "What I did 
not rob, then must I restore." Is this not substantially sus- 
taining House ? We say substantially, for we concede the 
term forced is unhappily chosen, though substantially a 
literal rendering. It is strong and harsh. But is it not, 
to all competent and candid minds, as literal as the prose, 
and as really a version ? If not, what shall we say of 
Luther, Alexander, and other scholars — indeed, of all 
scholars, for all must render substantially the same way ? 

We have now noticed the three, and the only instances 
in which our shrewd critics have discovered mistranslation 
and gross error in our metrical version. If more were to 
be found, more no doubt would have been found, and spread 
out over the emblazoned page. To the candid and ripe 



SCOTTISH VEKSION VINDICATED. 125 

scholar, acquainted with scripture translations, the follow- 
ing will at once be his decision in regard to the transla- 
tions in the three instances under consideration. They are, 
in both the English and Scottish versions, substantially 
fair translations ; and in nothing does either of them, in 
anything essential, misrepresent the sense of the original. 
Thus vanishes the bitter gall, in the form of malignant 
charges of mistranslation and gross error in essential evan- 
gelical doctrine, into thin air. What a dust and smoke of 
malignant slander raised around a mere shade of error in 
translating three or four Hebrew words — Ashre, Nephesh, 
Sheol, Ashib ! And then, one of these words translated 
into the very word used by our prose translators ; and the 
only one of the four actually mistranslated in Rouse — 
Nephesh mistranslated soul — of course not noticed by our 
critics, because so found in their Test-Rule. Another, sheol, 
actually settled in its meaning in the Sixteenth Psalm by a 
rule ruling the rule of our friends, the Holy Spirit in 
Acts — ruling the correctness of the rendering in Rouse, the 
"grave." From this decision in favor of Rouse, the defen- 
dant, the critics have no appeal. In the other two, the 
Hebrew text being the rule, ruling all rules, and the judg- 
ment of the most erudite philologists applying that rule, 
is not the difference substantially in favor of defendant? 
Is not the Scottish version in the cases under consideration 
on the whole better than the prose ? If the plaintiff has 
so signally failed here, in the strongest points possible for 
him to make, should he not suffer non-suit, pay damage 
and costs ? 

And now, after all the parade of words, sharp and bitter, 
poured out upon our Scottish version, its enemies have 
exhausted their magazines of wrath in windy charges 
against these two or three words as the only specimens of 
gross error and mistranslation. Can our prose version, after 
11* 



126 PSALMODY. 

passing through such an ordeal of fire, maintain such a 
record ? — only a word or two palpably mistranslated from 
beginning to end ? All other charges on which Rouse is 
condemned as patchwork — no version at all — belong to 
expletions, amplifications, etc. To these we shall attend 
in order. We now turn the tables. 

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 

The very unpleasant work of comparing defects in trans- 
lations is now before us. We again protest against this 
whole business, and again state that we suffer ourselves to 
be drawn into it only on necessary defence of truth, and as 
the last resort to arrest persistent warfare upon a version 
of a part of God's word which we hold dear. 

MISTRANSLATIONS IN THE PROSE BIBLE USED BY THE 
FRIENDS OF UNINSPIRED PSALMODY AS THEIR TEST- 
RULE. 

We here refer to the first class of errors in translation, 
to the gross and palpable kind, where a word is rendered 
by one of a different or opposite meaning, giving some 
other meaning aside the true one. 

The word Pneuma, meaning spirit, is found in the New 
Testament about 400 times. In 222 instances it is applied 
to the Third Person of the Trinity. In some 132 times 
translated accurately spirit. In some 90 instances grossly 
mistranslated " ghost." 

Now God is a Spirit. But neither an apparition, a 
wraith, a swarth. a swairth, a ghast, a giest, nor a ghost. 
This is a damaging mistranslation, and has done immense 
damaging work to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to the 
Supreme Deity of the Holy Spirit. Thousands of our youth 
have had their minds poisoned by this mistranslation. 



SCOTTISH VERSION VINDICATED. 127 

Thousands of shrewd Arians can scoff and cast in our teeth 
the stinging challenge — How can an apparition, a wraith, 
a ghost be God? All the mistranslations of Rouse put 
together will not equal these ninety cases of vital impor- 
tance. Shall we stop here ? 

In Job xxvi. 7, we read: "Hangeth the earth upon 
nothing." The Hebrew, balima, is mistranslated " nothing." 
It is found in Ps. xxxii. 9, translated " bit and bridle." In 
Job it means " restrainers," and doubtless refers to the cen- 
trifugal and centripetal forces holding the earth in its orbit. 

In Ps. xliv. 2, the prose reads, last clause, "And cast 
them out," referring to the heathen, and is a mistranslation 
of the Hebrew " tashalahim." This refers to " our fathers," 
and should read, " extend them," or increase them ; as also 
Ps. lxxx. 11, "Spread out" as branches. See Dr. Alex- 
ander ; also Scottish version. 

In Ps. xvi. 10, we have a palpable instance in mistrans- 
lating Nephesh and Sheol, soul, and hell, both in violation 
of the analogy of faith in the text and elsewhere, settling 
the meaning in the Psalm to be body and grave, and noth- 
ing else. 

The prose mistranslates Ps. lxii. 3, reading thus : " Ye 
shall be slain all of you ; as a bowing wall shall ye be, and 
as a tottering fence." This reading makes the reference to 
enemies. The true rendering changes the reference to the 
speaker, thus : " Will ye murder all of you, like a wall 
inclined, a fence crushed ?" That is, murder a. man already 
crushed ? 

The prose mistranslates and changes the meaning of Ps. 
xcii. 11, reading thus: "Mine eye also shall see my desire 
on mine enemies, and mine ears shall hear my desire." Lite- 
rally thus : " Mine eye has looked upon my enemies — my 
ear shall hear." Simply, sees what becomes of enemies, not 
the gratification of desires on them. The same mistrans- 



128 PSALMODY. 

lation is repeatedly found, as in Ps. liv. 7 ; Ps. lix. 10 , Ps. 
cxii. 8 ; Ps. cxviii. 7, etc. 

In Jerem. ii. 14, the following mistranslation occurs: 
" Home-born slave" where there is nothing like slave. The 
Hebrew is, "Hid baith," meaning "son of my house." 

In Luke xiv. 10, we read : " Then shalt thou have wor- 
ship." Doxa is found in the New Testament about 175 
times, and when applied to man never means worship ; this 
belongs to God alone. 

We read in Acts xii. 4, thus : " Intending after Easter." 
There is not a word in all the New Testament meaning 
Easter or Easter-day. That day belongs to episcopacy, not 
the word of God. Pascha, the Greek word, here means 
Passover, never Easter. In all Rouse there is not such a 
gross mistranslation. 

In 1 John ii. 23, we read as follows : (" But) he that ac- 
knowledged the Son hath the Father also." These words are in 
Italics, by which we are told that there is nothing for them 
in the text ; but, being understood, the translators supply 
the ellipsis. If these words are in the original, to tell us, 
as our translators here tell us, they are not, is palpably to 
mistranslate. If they are not in the original, that is quite 
another matter — only a large patch asserting some consider- 
able doctrinal teaching. Such would materially damage 
Rouse's divinity! 

In 2 Cor. viii. 1, have we a translation of "Gnoridzomen 
de humin," in these words : " Moreover, we do you, to wit ?" 
Or is this a translation in English ? — We make known to 
you. 
^v In 1 Tim. i. 9, we read : " The law is not made for a 
righteous man." Is this true of the text, either theologi- 
cally or philologically f The text is : " Nomos ou keitai," 
meaning the law lies not against. The law is made for the 



SCOTTISH VERSION VINDICATED. 129 

rule of the righteous man's life ; but its penalty lies not 
against him, but against the unrighteous man. ^ 

In Rev. xviii. 13, the word " somaton" meaning bodies, 
is rendered " slaves." 

In Lev. xxv. 44, and elsewhere, we have the mistrans- 
lation of the words, " abed and amath," by bondmen and 
bondmaids, when the meaning is simply servants, not slaves, 
as the translators meant. King James' translators were pro- 
episcopacy and pro-slavery, else why "Easter" and "slave?" 

In reviewing all the gross mistranslations charged upon 
our Scottish version we find, upon actual and candid ex- 
amination, only a single word or two, while many the most 
glaring are actually found in our prose Bible. In glancing 
over but a limited portion of our common Bible we find 
actually over one hundred gross mistranslations, for which 
there can be no apology or clearing explanation. We 
believe we can find hundreds more of the same class, many 
perhaps not so gross, but yet mistranslations. We have not 
been comparing King James' Bible with the Bishops', nor 
with any other translation, not even the Septuagint or Vul- 
gate. Tyros and tricksters, conscious of a bad cause, may 
resort to such comparisons. In this way we have had 
Rouse exposed to invidious gaze ad nauseam. Had the 
enemies of a scripture psalmody been content with truth 
and the exposure of facts, had they kindly pointed out to 
us the expansions and amplifications that may mar and 
weaken our translation, and had they tested these by the 
true standard, we should certainly have thanked them. 
Such fraternal smiting would have been an oil to our heads. 
But, no, our friends, with an erring standard, imperfect 
like our own version, pronounce upon its imperfections. 
And, not content with this farce and insulting mockery, 
they add grim caricature and smarting misrepresentation. 
Of these by-and-by. 



130 PSALMODY. 

Before passing to another feature in the comparison of 
versions, we may notice what will be familiar to every 
scholar. The strong, sententious language and idiom of 
the Hebrew make it difficult to bring out into an English 
translation its great fulness and strength without apparent 
circumlocution. And, when the translation is in measured 
verse, the difficulty is enhanced. In translation, whether 
is the error greater to palpably misconstrue words of the 
Holy Spirit, giving for translation words of different or 
opposite meaning ; or, to expand by a little circumlocution, 
while the meaning is retained and the analogy of faith is 
preserved inviolate ? Translators should endeavor to avoid 
all unnecessary expansions ; yet, since these blemishes will 
be found, so long as erring men translate, are we therefore 
to tell the heathen that the Bible, in the hundreds of lan- 
guages in which we are sending it, is nothing more than a 
patchwork paraphrase, and not the veritable inspired word 
of God at all ? Are we ready for that ? Paganism, Islam- 
ism, Popery, Infidelity, will all, with ecstasy of joy, hail 
this concession. Christ did not so treat a translation in- 
ferior to both our English Bible and our Scottish version 
of the Book of Psalms. Though our Bible, as a transla- 
tion, may have its blemishes, yet we are not willing there- 
fore that the " supreme judicatory " should "propose" and 
" sanction " a body of divinity or a commentary " suited to 
the circumstances/' and authorize its use instead of the 
Bible. Nor for any similar reasons are we willing that our 
Psalter should yield to any similar substitute. 

"rouse's patchwork paraphrase." 

In replying to the charge of "patchwork " drawn out in 
masterly tactician form against Rouse, we wish to notice, 
first, some of the violations of the rules of honorable con- 
troversy. Honorable men, in honorable controversy, will 



SCOTTISH VERSION VINDICATED. 131 

state with truth and candor the positions of an opponent. 
In giving specimens of "patchwork" our friends should not 
make for us patches of whole cloth, and then tag them to our 
old coat, once of noble texture, warp and woof, long worn 
by our fathers, because now perhaps a little threadbare, or 
its cut a little out of fashion. 

MANUFACTURED PATCHES CHARGED TO ROUSE. 

In our prose Bible, Ps. lx. 6, reads thus : " God hath 
spoken in his holiness ; I will rejoice." Alexander reads 
thus : " God hath spoken in his holiness ; I will triumph." 
Rouse reads thus : " God in his holiness hath said ; herein 
I will take pleasure." Each of these is a fair translation, 
without patch or ^paraphrase. Yet our friends, in their 
peculiar way, make and exhibit visible patchwork in oppo- 
site columns, thus : 

PROSE VERSION. ROUSE. 

" God hath spoken in his holiness." " God in his holiness hath said ; 

Herein I will take pleasure." 

Here they leave out, in quoting the prose, what corres- 
ponds to the second line of Rouse in italics, and so change 
the entire line, a patch of their own make, while there is 
not the shadow of either patch or mistranslation, beside 
their own fabrication of whole cloth. Were this the only 
case of the kind we would pass it as a lapsus. But no. 
Again, we give the following verse entire ; then the "patch" 
exhibit ; Ps. lxvi. 6 : 

PROSE. ROUSE. 

"He turned the sea into dry land; "Into dry land the sea he turned, 
they went through the flood on foot ; And they a passage had ; 

there did we rejoice in him." Ev'n marching through the flood 

on foot, 
There we in him were glad." 
Now, the patch exhibit : — 

"And they a passage had, 
Evn marching through the flood on foot." 



132 PSALMODY. 

This second line is marked in italics to brand it as a 
patch, for which there is nothing in the original ! Is there 
either truth or candor in this exhibit ? 

In Ps. xxxii. 6, we have another startling exhibit. To 
see it the better we give three translations of the clause : — 

PROSE. ALEXANDER. 

"Surely in the floods of great "Surely at the overflow of many 

waters they shall not come nigh waters, 

unto him." Unto him they shall not reach." 

House. 
u Surely, when floods of waters great do swell up to the brim, 
They shall not overwhelm his soul, nor once come near to him." 

Now see the exhibit, which truly sets Rouse in a ludi- 
crous light, thus : — 

" Surely when floods of waters great 
Do swell tip to the brim, 
They shall not overwhelm his soul, 
Nor once come near to him." 

Here the first and fourth lines are presumed to be from 
the original ; the middle lines patches. How, then, will 
the original read without the patches? — the pure original? 
Let us see : — 

" Surely when floods of waters great 



Nor once come near to him/ 



Take Ps. Ixxviii. 33 — writing Rouse, leaving italics in 
blank — we shall see how the original is made to read : — 

"Wherefore their days in vanity He did consume, . . . 
And .... their ... in trouble . . ." 

In Ps. lxxxiv. 12, they exhibit, by leaving out the italics, 
thus : — 

" Who by .... on thee alone doth rest." 

This represented as the text, or rule by which Bouse is 



SCOTTISH VERSION VINDICATED. 133 

condemned as a patchwork, suggests on the face of it some- 
thing omitted for effect. But supplying, as we have in the 
metrical version, we have just what the Hebrew warrants — 
"assured confidence." So " Baithhe" means — as to hang 
close, cling fast to, etc., and is expressive of full assurance. 
But Rouse uses two words of many syllables — "rest by 
assured confidence," for trust in God. Now, if long words 
make patches, we had better, in translating, use monosyl- 
lables. Are there no polysyllables in the prose version ? 

These examples are only specimens of skill in garbling, 
misquoting, mis-italicizing Rouse, the better to make out a 
case. When these manufactured changes are deducted, 
and then the misconstructions and exaggerations, the 
patches will dwindle into proportions common to all faith- 
ful translations, our prose version not excepted. 

MISCONSTRUCTIONS TO EXHIBIT PATCHES. 

. "We mean by misconstruction, the charging upon Rouse, 
as damaging patchwork, blemishes common to both 
versions. If expletives, in the form of qualifying words, 
or adjectives, etc., are found frequently in prose, as they 
are, and these destroy not its claim to our recognition as 
the word of God, why deny the same justice to the metrical 
version ? This we think is both plain and fair 

Examples. 

PROSE VERSION. ROUSE. 

Ps. cii. 6. "I am like a pelican of " Like pelican in wilderness, 

the wilderness." Forsaken I have been." 

"We wish this to be carefully noticed, as an example 
illustrating principles here. The second line is set down 
as a large and damaging patch of " human composition," 
and so italicized. Now notice — the first line fails to make 
sense, the verb of the sentence is left out, consigned to 
12 



134 PSALMODY. 

italics. Perhaps, because, put in the preterite tense, " I 
have been," of the metre, is as agreeable to the Hebrews as 
" I am " of the prose. Then in all fairness our friend should 
have written us thus — " I have been like a pelican in the 
wilderness." This leaves the patch, really and honestly, 
very small, only the qualifying word, "forsaken." But 
the pelican is a bird of solitude, and its use here is to sug- 
gest the idea of loneliness in the text. If such idea be in 
the text, and if, in composition similar, similar qualifying 
expletives are frequently found in the prose, as we shall 
show, then the damaging patch disappears. 

The succeeding clause furnishes an illustration of the 
same principle : 

" I am like an owl of the desert." I am like the hooting night-bird 

of the desert. 

Another class of Examples. 

" I delayed not." "I did not stay, nor linger long, 

As those that slothful are." 

The Hebrew word here is difficult to render fully with- 
out circumlocution. We believe it is never found in Kal ; 
but in most instances, as here in the Psalm, in the Hith- 
pael. As a participle here, with its reflective signification, 
it may be rendered : — I did not stand to ask questions, 
how, what t I did not stand still-I — shall-I ? or dilly, 
dally. Harder to express than conceive the idea. In 
such construction expletives are not uncommon. Nor does 
Rouse vary materially from the very meaning of the text. 

Another of the class. 

" I thought on my ways." " I thought upon my former ways, 

And did my life loell try." 

It will be noticed here, as elsewhere, our friends in using 
their italics rigidly apply the prose version as the rule. 



SCOTTISH VERSION VINDICATED. 135 

Were they to apply the original, often the result would be 
materially changed. 

The Hebrew, Hashab, means more than the prose ex- 
presses. It means to add — superadd. Applied to thoughts, 
it means reflection — meditating over the past — and is 
copiously expressed in the amplified terms of our version. 
What thought beyond the spirit of the text is added ? 

It is not necessary that we vindicate every challenged 
expletive ; nor is it essential that every one can be vindi- 
cated. No translation can claim such perfection. We 
claim no such perfection for our version. Nor can any 
man vindicate the mistranslations, or the burdensome and 
unnecessary expletives of our Bible. 

SPECIMEN EXPLETIVES FROM OUR COMMON BIBLE. 

John viii. 6. " But Jesus stooped down, and with his 
finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not." 
Here is a patch large enough to harm Rouse very 
materially, if in the hands of our friends. Do the words 
of the sentence in the original suggest the idea of Christ's 
voluntary deafness, as loneliness is implied in the Psalm 
above ? If these six words were not here, would we, in 
reading the words not marked in italics, naturally and 
undoubtedly entertain the idea that Christ did not hear, 
or that he was pretending not to hear ? Is it not, at least, 
doubtful? But in the Psalm, can any one thoughtfully 
read the sentence without the word forsaken, and the ques- 
tion not occur — how like the pelican? Or without the 
idea of loneliness occurring to the mind ? Still, if all this 
be denied, on what principle can we condemn the one and 
justify the other? 

Acts xxviii. 4. "And when the barbarians saw the 
venomous beast hang." Here is a qualifying word suggested 
from the nature of the subject, though not in the original, 



136 PSALMODY. 

and not in the least needed to make sense ; and was fault 
ever found with it, as with scores of the kind in the Bible ? 

Rom. vii. 10. "And the commandment which was 
ordained to life, I found to be unto death." Here are two 
verbs added ; one expressive of action not implied in the 
original, viz : was ordained. Or, if implied, as suggested 
by the text, certainly with evidence no clearer than, " for- 
saken," in the Psalm above. And then why not render 
the sentence thus: "And the commandment for life, I 
found for death ? " In all such cases in Bible and in 
Psalm, let both go unchallenged together. 

Horn. xi. 16. " If the first fruit be holy, the lump is 
also holy." We notice this not only for an offset to this 
class of patches now under consideration, but to meet the 
charge of adding "adjectives" and qualifying words. Hun- 
dreds of such are in the prose Bible. Of course we can 
stay to give a few specimens only. 

1 Cor. 14. " Unknown" is used five times to qualify 
tongue ; and six times omitted where the word tongue is 
used. 

1 Pet. iii. 2. " Behold your chaste conversation coupled 
with fear." In this construction of the sentence, coupled 
is a comment settling what seems to be assumed as un- 
certain. Why not read without the supplement thus : 
" Beholding in reverence your chaste conversation ? " 

2 Pet. ii. 18. " They allure through the lusts of the 
flesh, through much wantonness." Here are qualifying 
words not in the original, of doubtful character. They 
burden the sense, and change the degree of the attribute 
or quality of the subject of the affirmation. Such ex- 
pletives would be large explanation in Rouse, and a 
damaging patch. *But certainly right in the Test-Rule. 

2 Pet. iii. 1. " This second epistle, beloved, I now write 
unto you ; in both which — " I refer to this not because 



SCOTTISH VERSION VINDICATED. 137 

the italicised word, " both," should not be inserted, but 
because we have here a good subject to illustrate the un- 
fairness of the rule by which our brethren test our version. 
If we look not behind the English in our translation here, 
we may justly condemn the use of the qualifying word 
" both" Because, the question, whether Peter includes 
the first with the second epistle, or " this" the second only, 
cannot be settled without reference to the original. Here 
the relative " which " being plural requires both, if ellipsis 
be supplied. Must all patches in Rouse of this kind, 
because differing from the prose, be condemned as can- 
celling its claim to recognition as a version ? 

Jude 8. " Also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh." 
Just such use of qualifying is sweepingly condemned in 
Rouse. How do we know whether these dreamers were 
filthy or chaste dreamers, good or bad, true or false, vision- 
ary or real ? Is filthy a divine or human word ? In- 
spired or uninspired ? How is this, and all such cases ? 
For 'just so we are taunted in page after page, and para- 
graph after paragraph. Is this kind of thing fair ? 

Job xii. 6. " Into whose hand God bringeth abundantly" 
To add the qualifying word here is adding to the sense, and 
materially changes the meaning. This would be a human 
patch in Rouse, and would spoil his divinity. How with 
Job ? Our friends should be posted here in adjusting scales 
and grading rules. 

Amos iv. 3. "And ye shall go out at the breaches, 
every cow at that which is before her." 

How shall we justify the addition to the original of these 
words in italics f Not a word in the verse or sentence 
about cows. We have to travel back ten lines before we 
find "kine" in the context. If our brethren will justify the 
patching here, it will aid in answering many of their objec- 
12* 



138 PSALMODY. 

tions, and help to chasten their Christian style of treating 
the Book of Psalms. 

Exodus xii. 36. -" And the Lord gave the people favor 
in thejsight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them 
such things as they required." Are our friends sure these 
words in italics are not human ? 

Numbers xiv. 27. " How long shall I bear with this evil 
congregation, which murmur against me ?" Why not read 
thus : How long this evil congregation murmuring against 
me ? Rather different reading. 

2 Sam. xx. 19. "I am of them that are peaceable." " I 
peaceable" is inspired ; are the other six words ? 

1 Kings xx. 12. " Set yourselves in array. And they set 
themselves in array against the city." Set, and they set 
against the city. A military order — form — and they 
formed against the city. 

2 Kings x. 24. " If any of the men whom I have brought 
into your hands escape, he that letteth him go his life shall he 
for the life of him.'' Are these words: "he that letteth him 
go, shall be," inspired ? 

1 Chron. xix. 18. "Seven thousand men. which fought in 
chariots." Why not: "Seven thousand charioteers?" 

1 Chron. xxviii. 21. "Behold, the courses of the priests 
and the Levites, even they shall be with thee for all the ser- 
vice of the house of God ; and there shall be with thee, for 
all manner of workmanship." May we not read thus : 
" Behold, the courses of the priests and the Levites with 
thee for all the service of the house of God, and for all 
manner of workmanship ?" Any human patches here ? 
Only nine or ten words. 

Job xxxiv. 10. " Far be it from God that he should do 
wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should commit 
iniquity." Could not the italics be omitted here, and the 
strength of the sense increased ? Thus : " Wickedness is 



SCOTTISH VERSION VINDICATED. 139 

fur from God, iniquity from the Almighty." Forty-six 
letters inspired, forty-six uninspired. How is this ? 

Again, verses 17-19. "Wilt thou condemn him that 
is most just? Is it fit to say to a king, thou art wicked? 
and to princes, ye are ungodly ? Hoiv much less to him 
that accepteth not the persons of princes." 

Read the " patches" grouped together — Is it Jit, thou art, 
and, ye are, How much less to him?" 

Now read the inspired words : " Wilt thou condemn him 
that is most just, saying to a king, wicked ? to princes, un- 
godly ? accepting not the persons of princes?" 

Reader, patience a moment. Remember, our friends 
charge on our version explanations, additions, repetitions, 
human compositions; and conclude, therefore, Rouse is 
" no version at all." We wish to show that they prove too 
much — proving our version, no version, they prove the 
Bible no version. 

CONDENSED, PROMISCUOUS GROUPING EXAMPLES FOR 
ILLUSTRATION. 

"For they considered not the miracle of the loaves." 
" For they considered not the loaves." " The miracle " is 
an explanation, is comment, not translation, strictly. 

" Is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for 
whom it is prepared." Text : " Is not mine to give, but 
for whom prepared." This occurs in several instances, and 
always unnecessarily. 

" Two women shall be grinding at the mill." Text : 
" Two grinding at the mill." 

" Ye know that after two days is the feast of the pass- 
over." "After two days is the passover." This occurs 
again and again in the New Testament, only burdening 
the force of the expression. 

" A certain man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge 



140 PSALMODY. 

around it, and digged a place for the winefat." Text: "A 
man planted a vineyard, hedged and digged a winefat." 

" For ye know not when the time is ; for the Son of man 
is as a man taking a far journey." Text : " For, as a man 
taking a far journey, ye know not when the time is." Is 
there not here, first, a useless addition ; and second, an 
improper use of " The sacred Name f 

In Luke iii. 23-38, we have seventy-five repetitions of 
two words, making 150 words in fifteen verses, without 
corresponding words in the original, and adding no strength 
to the meaning. 

" But this cometh to pass that the word might be fulfilled. 
Text : " But that the word might be fulfilled." 

" Because their country was nourished by the king's 
country." Why not by the king's " bounty t" 

" Especially because I know thee to be expert." Why 
not thus : " Since thou art expert ?" 

" Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon 
all men to condemnation ; even so by the righteousness of 
one, the free gift came upon all men." Here is addition 
upon addition, darkening rather than explaining. This is 
the simple statement : " As through one offence — so through 
one righteousness." 

" Because they sought it not by faith." Text : " Because 
not by faith." 

" Who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal." 
Text : " Who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 

" My brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe." 
Text : " My brethren, by them of Chloe." 

" Who maketh thee to differ from another /" Text : 
"Who distinguish thee?" 

u A dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me." 
Text : " I am intrusted with a stewardship." 

" It is not permitted unto them to speak ; but they are 



SCOTTISH VERSION VINDICATED. 141 

commanded to be under obedience." Text : " It is not per- 
mitted unto them to speak, but to be under obedience." 
This patch is pretty broad and stem. 

" For one star differeth from another star in glory." 
Better: "Star differeth from star in glory." This speci- 
men of slight addition, apparently trifling, yet, to any com- 
petent scholar, it clearly weakens the text, and mars its 
sublimity and euphony. Even secular journals are noticing 
these things, and suggesting the importance of a general 
revision of the whole Bible. Another instance of appa- 
rently trifling use of ellipsis, yet materially affecting the 
sense : — 

" The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." Is 
not the averment here the order of destruction ? — death the 
last enemy to be destroyed ? Whereas, is not this the affir- 
mation of the text : " Death, the last enemy, shall be de- 
stroyed ?" Is not the office, and effect of these expletives 
obviously comment? 

" But now much more diligent, upon the great confidence 
which I have in you. Whether any do inquire of Titus, he 
is my partner and fellow-helper concerning you; or our 
brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers of the 
churches." Text : " Upon the great confidence in you, or 
of Titus, my partner and fellow-helper, concerning you ; or 
our brethren, the messengers of the churches." 

" The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." 
Or, " Our schoolmaster unto Christ." 

" For that day shall not come." Text : " For." 

This last specimen looks so much like the examples of 
our friends, we place in juxta-position the following — -par 
nobile ! : — 

PROSE VERSION. ROUSE. 

"I delayed not." "I did not stay, nor linger long, 

As those that slothful are." ■ 



142 PSALMODY. 

" Neither give heed to . . . which minister questions, rather 
than godly edifying, which is in faith ; so do." Do what ? 
Paul dissuades Timothy in the text. And this patch breaks 
the connection with the verse following : — 

" Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from 
meats." Text : " Forbidding to marry, and to use meats." 

" I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." 
Text : " May it not be laid to their charge." Is this " patch'* 
needed here to supply anything? And, then, does this pro- 
fane the Divine name, as charged upon our version ? 

" And not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole 
world," Text : " And not for ours only, but also for the 
whole world." Is this not comment, unnecessarily imping- 
ing upon a theological controversy ? 

" And I will write upon him my new name." Text : 
" And my new name." Is this repetition ? 

We have selected from a part of our English Bible a few 
specimens only out of hundreds upon hundreds found in 
the Test-Rule of our brethren. Space and our readers' 
patience forbid extension. 

One class more of charges requires attention : 

THE USE OF THE DIVINE NAMES AND ATTRIBUTES. 

Everything that can excite prejudice against our Scot- 
tish version of the Psalms has been ingeniously paraded 
and emblazoned on the pages of controversy, and spread 
out before the gaze of the public eye. And all this for 
partisan effect, as ungenerous as injurious. It is distinctly 
insinuated that Rouse is guilty of profaning the Divine 
name by its use when it is not found in the original. We 
are challenged thus : " Can this be a sacred use of these 
awful Titles of the Sovereign of all worlds ?" 

We admit that in some instances the charge against 
Rouse is, at least, worthy of consideration. If there were 



SCOTTISH VERSION VINDICATED. 143 

no such instances in the prose Bible we should, perhaps 
feel 'startled at the bold charge. I presume here, as else 
where, our friends did not think of this when hurling stones 
at Rouse. Had the facts been before their minds it is pre 
sinned that, as skilled controversialists, they would have 
written with more modesty and Christian charity. In 
many instances, where the translators of our Bible use the 
Divine name, no principle or rule of translating requires 
such licence. We are not prepared to vindicate or censure. 
The right or wrong here is for our brethren to settle. Indeed, 
this should have been done before committing themselves 
to the condemnation of their standard by which they con- 
demn us. Were this thing wrong, and our common Bible 
innocent, we should make concessions. 

We have hastily run our eye over several books of the 
Bible, and have noticed about eighty instances of the use 
of the Divine name where it is wanting in the original. It 
is probable there are more than one hundred instances in 
the entire Bible. Nor are we prepared to say that there is 
a single instance in which the Divine name might not be 
omitted without prejudice to the sense, either by the use of 
the pronoun, or by changing the structure of the sentence. 

SPECIMENS OF TRANSLATORS' USE OF THE DIVINE NAME 
WHERE WANTING IN THE ORIGINAL. 

Deut. xvi. 10 : "And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks 
unto the Lord thy God with a tribute of a free-will offer- 
ing of thine hand, which thou shalt give unto the Lord 
thy God, according as the Lord thy God hath blessed thee." 
The omission could not impair the sense here. 

Deut. xxxiii. 12: "The beloved of the Lord shall dwell 
in safety by him ; and the Lord shall cover him all the 
day long." 

2 Chron. iii. 1 : " Then Solomon began to build the house 



144 PSALMODY. 

of the Lord at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah, where the Lord 
appeared unto David." Why not the pronoun here? 

2 Chron. xvii. 4 : " But sought to the Lord God of his 
father." Superfluous here. 

Neh. vi. 9: "Now, therefore, God, strengthen my 
hands." Similar to many Psalms. 

Isa. xxvi. 1 : " Salvation will God appoint for walls and 
bulwarks." This being song is similar, in its use of the 
Divine name, to many of the cases occurring in the Psalms. 

Acts vii. 59 : " And they stoned Stephen calling upon 
God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit." Evidently 
unnecessary here. A different construction will make the 
name superfluous. 

1 Cor. xvi. 2 : " Let every one of you lay by him in 
store, as God hath prospered him." 

Roni. ix. 4 : "To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the 
glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and 
the service of God, and the promises." McKnight reads : 
"And the worship, and the promises." 

James ii. 1 : " Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Lord of glory." This can be avoided by other' 
wise constructing the sentence. 

2 Tim. iv. 16 : " I pray God that it may not be laid to 
their charge." There can be no plea for the use of the 
Divine name more than in any Psalm where it is used. The 
meaning is simply : " Let it not be laid to their charge." 

Heb. ix. 6 : " The priests went always into the first taber- 
nacle, accomplishing the service of God." Here the service 
of the tabernacle is the reference, and the Divine name 
superfluous. 

Col. i. 19 : " For it pleased the Father that in him should 
all fulness dwell." The insertion here is not only super- 
fluous, but raises a theological question that belongs to 
exposition, not to translation. 



SCOTTISH VERSION VINDICATED. 145 

1 Thess. v. 23 : " And the very God of peace sanctify 
you wholly ; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul 
and body be preserved." 

In Ps. xxiv. 6, the Septuagint supplies the Divine name : 
" God of Jacob." And our prose Bible supplies twice in 
Ps. cxxxii. 2 and 5 : " Mighty God of Jacob." 

Gen. xliv. 7 : " God forbid tfett thy servants should do 
according to this thing." And verse 17 : " And he said : 
God forbid that I should do so." The Hebrew word Halile 
is so translated in the Old Testament some eight or ten 
times, where there is no more need for using the Divine 
name than in the instances charged against House. "Far 
be it" or some such equivalent, would as faithfully trans- 
late the original as, " God forbid" and so escape the indirect 
charge, preferred by our friends, of profanely using the 
Divine name. 

Luke xx. 16 : " And when they heard it they said : " God. 
forbid " — " Mee genoito. ,} 

Rom. iii. 4, 6, 31 : "God forbid;" given as the rendering 
of the Greek, which simply means — " By no means" and 
fully renders the original. See McKnight. 

This misuse of the Divine name occurs some fifteen times 
in the New Testament ; some twenty-three times at least in 
the Bible ; beside the other forms, in all perhaps more than 
one hundred times. In many instances, similar to those 
where the Divine name is used, its insertion does not occur, 
which suggests a doubt in regard to the necessity of such 
rendering in any instance. And what is the more singular 
here, in these twenty-three instances, italics are not used, 
as in other cases where the reader is informed there is no 
corresponding word in the original. 

We cannot extend quotations. Five or six times the 
number might have been added. Enough to show the 
animus of our extreme critics. It is presumed that where 



146 PSALMODY 

the Divine Being is the object or suoject of a sentence, our 
translators have not scrupled to write the name. Perhaps 
they had not studied the subject as carefully as our pious 
friends of the hymn-book — perhaps not so tenderly scrupu- 
lous in their conscience. Under all the circumstances Ave 
shall leave this question of casuistry su b judice, hoping our 
friends will issue an exegetical thesis which will save us 
and all our translators from future blunders. 

We would here, in the mean time, before parting with 
our friends, venture, in a fraternal and charitable spirit, to 
advise them to extend their acquaintance with their Bible. 
It will' aid them in their warfare upon translations. It may 
save them from exposing their want of reasonable know- 
ledge of subjects on which they can write with wonderful 
assurance and flippancy. It may greatly simplify their 
style, and save them from that most repulsive and charac- 
teristic ex cathedra feature of their polemic discussions of 
this favorite subject. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE SCOTTISH VERSION COMPARED WITH THE SEPTUAGINT. 

Why this comparison — Its importance in this discussion — The established 
opinion and decision of the Churches in regard to the Septuagint as a 
translation — Its defects compared with those of the Scottish version — The 
claims of the Scottish version sustained by such comparison — Luther's 
translation incidentally noticed — Inferences. 

The claims of any particular version are not to be set- 
tled finally by comparison with any other received version. 
The original text is the only true test, and by this ours 
must stand or fall. Yet, on several accounts, it becomes 
essential to our discussion to compare the Scottish version 
with others long received and acknowledged. 

First, because our friends have made a received transla- 
tion a test by which they have with extreme severity put 
our version on trial. 

Second, because, if our version will compare favorably 
with other received versions, our friends are refuted on their 
own chosen ground, and our version is sustained triumph- 
antly against unreasonable cavil. 

Third, because, though this is argumentum ad hominum, 
yet it seems to be the only and last resort through which 
to meet our oppponents, and silence their unreasonable 
charges and appeals to popular prejudice and ignorance. 

The Protestant churches, in this age of Bible translation 
and dissemination, are not prepared for the condemnation 
of any one version because not perfect, and because some 
blemish may be found not common to all other versions, 
since all versions are human, and each may have some 

147 



148 ' PSALMODY. 

peculiar defect of its own. Our point in this chapter is not 
how good our version may be ; but has it, on comparison 
with others, a right to a fellowship among other recognized 
versions of the Scriptures ? 

There are four recognized translations, of long and estab- 
lished reputation, in four different languages. The Sep- 
tuagint in the Greek, the Vulgate in the Latin, Luther's 
Bible in the German, and our own in the English. Opinions 
may differ in regard to their respective merits as versions. 
The Septuagint has enjoyed a longer and more universal 
recognition than any one of the others. The Jews, the 
Greek and Roman Catholics and Protestants, have ap- 
pealed to the Greek Bible of the Seventy as the inspired 
word of God, as we appeal to our English Bible. A ver- 
sion that has been recognized by the whole Church for two 
thousand years can hardly be ignored as a patchwork or 
paraphrase for the sake of effect in controversy. If it be a 
translation, and yet more and grosser mistranslations are 
found in it than can be found in the Scottish version of the 
Psalms, then this is a translation. In a question of this 
kind the harmonious statements of standard and unchal- 
lenged authors should be received without challenge. 

THE SEPTUAGINT. 

We quote from the deservedly celebrated Prof. Gaussen, 
of Geneva, Switzerland, on the Inspiration of the Bible, pp. 
161-163:— 

" The sacred authors of the New Testament, when they 
themselves quote the old Hebrew Scriptures in Greek, em- 
ploy for that purpose the Greek translation, so called of the 
Seventy, executed at Alexandria two centuries and a half 
before Jesus Christ. 

" No more is required, in fact, than to study the manner 
in which the Apostles employ the Septuagint, in order to 



SCOTTISH VERSION COMPARED WITH SEPTUAGINT. 149 

see in it a striking sign of the verbal inspiration under 
which they wrote. 

"Although it was the universal practice of the Hellenistic 
Jews, throughout the whole East, to read in their syna- 
gogues and to quote in their discussions the Old Testament, 
according to that ancient version, the Apostles show us the 
independence of the spirit that guided them by the three 
several methods they follow in their quotations." 

These quotations, if their accuracy be admitted, prove — 
First, that the Jews, two hundred and fifty years before 
Christ, used, in their synagogues, the Septuagint as the 
Scriptures in their vernacular tongue. Second, Christ and 
his Apostles found this Greek copy of the Scriptures in the 
synagogues of the Jews generally — always where they 
understood the Greek language. Third, the writers of the 
New Testament wrote in the same language, and quote 
from the Septuagint as from a generally recognized ver- 
sion. 

We quote from Smith's Bible Dictionary, p. 507 : — ■ 

"The Septuagint version was highly esteemed by the 
Hellenistic Jews before the coming of Christ. The manner 
in which it is quoted by the writers of the New Testament 
proves that it had been long in general use. Wherever, by 
the conquests of Alexander, or by colonization, the Greek 
language prevailed ; wherever Jews were settled, and the 
attention of the neighboring Gentiles was drawn to their 
wondrous history and law, there was found the Septuagint, 
which thus became, by Divine Providence, the means of 
spreading widely the knowledge of the One True God, and 
his promises of a Saviour to come, throughout the nations. 
Not less wide was the influence of the Septuagint in the 
spread of the Gospel. The Ethiopian eunuch was reading 
the Septuagint version of Isaiah in his chariot. They who 
were scattered abroad went forth into many lands speaking 
13* 



150 PSALMODY. 

of Christ in Greek, and pointing to the things written of 
Him in the Greek version of Moses and the Prophets." 

Besides confirming Gaussen, this testimony shows how 
this translation went with the New Testament Scriptures 
in their diffusion wherever Christianity spread in the first 
Christian centuries ; and so the whole Bible, Old and New 
Testaments, went together in the same language. No trans- 
lation ever had a more universal recognition as the word 
of God in any age or in any country. 

From Home we make the following quotations, vol. i., 
pp. 264, etc. :— 

" Among the Greek versions of the Old Testament, the 
Alexandrian or Septuagint, as it is generally termed, is the 
most ancient and valuable; and was held in so much 
esteem, both by the Jews and by the first Christians, as to 
be constantly read in the synagogues and churches. Hence 
it is uniformly cited by the early Fathers, whether Greek 
or Latin ; and from this version all the translations into 
other languages which were anciently approved by the 
Christian Church were executed, except the Syriac. 

" The Septuagint version gradually acquired the highest 
authority among the Jews of Palestine, who were acquainted 
with the Greek language, and subsequently also among 
Christians." 

References to the same import might be greatly extended. 
The Septuagint has for two thousand years held a high and 
unquestioned authority as a translation. Notwithstanding, 
the current testimony makes equally clear that this trans- 
lation has many defects — abounds in mistranslations. 

How will it compare with the Scottish version ? — This 
is our present inquiry. Home says, p. 266 : — 

" The translator of the book of Job being acquainted 
with the Greek poets, his style is more elegant and studied ; 
but he was not sufficiently master of the Hebrew language 



SCOTTISH VERSION COMPARED WITH SEPTUAGINT. 151 

and literature, and consequently his version is very erro- 
neous. Many of the historical passages are interpolated ; 
and in the poetical parts there are several passages want- 
ing. Jerome, in his preface to the book of Job, specifies 
as many as seventy or eighty. The Psalms and Prophets 
were translated by men every way unequal to the task." 

Of Origin it is said : " When any passages appeared in 
the Septuagint that were not found in the Hebrew, he 
designated them by an obelus. And, in lieu of the very 
erroneous Septuagint version of Daniel, Theodotian's trans- 
lation of that book was inserted entire." 

Enough to show the universal reputation of the Sep- 
tuagint — first, as an acknowledged translation of the books 
of the Old Testament ; and second, as having many gross 
mistranslations, additions, omissions, interpolations, and 
explanations ; and with all these defects, still never, even 
by the best scholars, denounced as "patchwork, para- 
phrase, no version at all." Such denunciation is left to 
controversial extravagance. 

Home gives a list of the quotations from the Old Testa- 
ment in the New, in some of which we have specimens of 
the Septuagint's mistranslations. We shall give a few 
examples : — 

PROSE VERSION. SEPTUAGINT. 

Mich. v. 2: "But thou, Bethle- " But as for thee, Bethlehem, thou 

hem Ephratah, though thou he little house of Ephratha, art thou the least 

among the thousands of Judah." (or too little to become one) of the 

thousands of Judah ?" 

Hos. xi. 1 : "I... called my son "I called his children out of 

out of Egypt." Egypt." 

Isa. xlii. 1 : " Behold my servant, " Jacob is my servant, I will up- 

whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom hold him ; Israel is my chosen, my 

my soul delighteth." soul hath embraced him." 

Zech. xi. 13: " Cast it unto the " Put them into the smelting fur- 
potter; a goodly price that I was nace, and I will see whether it is 
prized at of them." proof, in like manner as I have 

been proved by them." 



152 



PSALMODY. 



PTtOSE VERSION. 

Zech. xii. 10: "They shall look 
on me whom they have pierced." 

Gen. xviii. 10: " I will certainly 
return unto thee according to the 
time of life." 

Isa. viii. 14: " He shall be . . . 
for a stone of stumbling and a rock 
of offence to both the houses of 
Israel." 

Prov. x. 12 : " Love covereth all 
sins." 



SEPTUAGINT. 

" They will look to me, instead of 
the things concerning which they 
have contemptuously danced." 

" I will return to thee about this 
time twelvemonth." 

"And ye shall not run against a 
stumbling stone, nor as under a fall- 
ing rock." 

" But friendship covereth all them 
who are not contentious." 



These are but a small specimen of a single class. We 
might add hundreds more, and in addition to the seventy 
or eighty verses omitted in Job. A few, in addition, from 
the book of Psalms : — 



Ps. iv. 2 : " How long . . . my glory 
into shame?" 

Ps. iv. 3: "But know that the 
Lord hath set apart him that is 
godly for himself." 

Ps. xvi. 3 : "To the saints that 
are in the earth, and to the excel- 
lent, in whom is all iny delight." 

Ps. xxii. 1 : "Why hast thou for- 
saken me . . . from the words of 
my roaring ?" 

Ps. ex. 3 : " Thy people shall be 
willing in the day of thy power, in 
the beauties of holiness from the 
womb of the morning : thou hast the 
dew of thy youth." 



" How long will ye be obstinate V 
(Barukardioi.) 

"But know ye that the Lord has 
made wonderful his saint." 

"To the saints in his earth, in 
them has he made wonderful all his 
will." 

Added: "Give heed to me" — 
words of my transgressions, for " roar- 
ings." 

" With thee is the beginning in 
the day of thy power, in the splen- 
dors of thy saints. Out of the womb 
before the morning star I begot 
thee." 



This brief exhibit presents a very limited view of even 
specimen defects in the translations of the Septuagint. Our 
time, space, the nature of the subject, and the patience of 
our readers, suggest cursory notice. We might here, in the 



SCOTTISH VERSION COMPARED WITH SEPTUAGINT. 153 

same way, show the errors of Luther's translation. Subse- 
quent translators and commentators have made this matter 
plain enough. Error in Luther's Bible is not, at this day, 
a matter of controversy. Nor is it a matter of question 
whether any translation is free from mistranslations. It 
may be a matter of question whether some of these recog- 
nized translations do not, in their mistranslations, surpass 
any error that can be found in our Scottish version. 

In regard to the comparative merits of Luther's transla- 
tion, Gaussen makes the following statement : — 

" The version of an accomplished rationalist, who desires 
to be no more than a translator, I could better trust than 
that of an orthodox person and a saint, who should para- 
phrase the text, and undertake to present it to me more 
complete or more clear in his French than he found it in 
the Greek or in the Hebrew of the original. And let no 
one be surprised at this assertion ; it is justified by facts. 
Thus, is not De Wette's translation, among the Germans, 
preferred at the present day to that even of the great 
Luther ? At least is there not greater confidence felt in 
having the mind of the Holy Spirit in the lines of the Basel 
professor than in those of the great reformer ; because the 
former has always kept very close to the expressions of the 
text, as a man of learning, subject to the rules of philology 
alone ; while the latter seems at times to have momen- 
tarily endeavored after something more, and sought to make 
himself interpreter as well as translator ?" 

As Luther's Bible might be improved, so for the same 
reasons might our English Bible ; and it should be, were 
the reliable instrumentalities available. . Our Psalter might 
be improved, and it should be. We know this and feel it. 
In the work of its improvement we are making some effort. 
And what do these acknowledged facts prove? One thing 
they do not prove, with all the blemishes found — they 



154 PSALMODY. 

don't prove these versions to be " mere patchwork, para- 
phrase, no versions at all." De Wette's version may be, 
doubtless is, better than Luther's. Is, therefore, Luther's 
now, since the publication of De Wette's, no translation 
at all ? Luther's Bible is still reputed a version of the 
Scriptures, the word of God, as other human translations 
are. 

Should some sect, on the ground of some " patches " in 
our Bible, draw up a commentary, embracing its own creed 
faithfully, and "grouping" all "essential" truths of the 
Bible, and use it for all the purposes for which evangelical 
churches use the Scriptures ; and should some church re- 
prove for such use of a commentary and abuse of the word 
of God, and should it be retorted : " Three are mistransla- 
tions, errors doctrinal and historical, paraphrases, explana- 
tions, etc., in your Bible, and you use nothing better than 
our commentary, and then our commentary needs no ex- 
planation," — would the friends of the Bible own they had 
no inspired Scriptures, and that they had been under delu- 
sion about translations and versions ? Friends and brethren, 
on all sides of this controversy, we will venture to say for 
you all here, none of us are ready for any such conclu- 
sions. Nor are the friends of a scripture psalmody ready to 
abandon the use of our inspired songs because of the equally 
unjust charges .made against our divine psalter. 

If Luther's Bible, the Septuagint — saying nothing cf 
hundreds of versions going to the heathen — and our own 
English version, have all their defects in translation, and 
yet are all recognized as versions of the Scriptures, how 
can we refuse the Scottish version, as free from mistrans- 
lation as any of them, a recognition to fellowship in the 
family of versions? How cast it off as a "human com- 
position," and consign it to cold fellowship with Dr. Watts' 
imitations and hymns ? Candor demands for it better com- 



SCOTTISH VERSION COMPARED WITH SEPTUAGINT. 155 

pany ; for, if it be not the word of God inspired, then we 
have not the word of God inspired in the vernacular 
tongues. 

Until our friends shall revolutionize the entire theory 
and practice of the Church for two thousand years on the 
subject of versions, we shall remain unmoved by all their 
refined amenity and Christian charity, so fraternally ex- 
hibited in their charges upon Rouse's " patchwork, para- 
phrase, no version at all, gross error in doctrine." 

It is due to state here, by way of concession, that, while 
it is true that mistranslations and blemishes charged upon 
Rouse are all of their kind, more or less, found in our 
Bible and in the Septuagint, even to the violation of the 
order of the original, as in the case of the Septuagint 
changing the order of the commandments, yet it is just to 
admit that there are a few cases of poetic licence in which 
too much is added. These occur in the second versions 
mostly and in the particular metres, as in Psalms cxxiv., 
cxxxvi., and cxliii. L'ike hundreds of instances in our 
Bible and in the Septuagint, these should be reviewed and 
corrected. In this work we are as a church engaged, and, 
according to our ability, are endeavoring to make progress. 
We admit, what candor demands for every translation 
known, there are instances where correction should be 
made. We admit, further, the age and circumstances de- 
mand for the inspired Psalms a better dress, a higher lite- 
rary and poetic finish. And it is to be hoped that these 
Psalms, now under process of correction and improvement, 
will, under a kind Providence, soon appear in an improved 
form in some measure equal to their merit. 

Another consideration might be urged upon the friends 
of a Scripture psalmody. The singing, in too many of our 
churches, is every way inferior to the merit and claims of 
our inspired, soul-moving songs. The dulness of our music, 



156 PSALMODY. 

and the indifference of so many of the friends of the Bible 
Psalms to the cultivation of congregational singing, give 
occasion to charge the defect upon the Psalms themselves. 
There is a life and power in the divinely inspired songs 
justifying the highest attainments in sacred vocal music. 



CHAPTER VII. 

CONCLUSION. 

The argument from history — Very briefly noticed — Of comparatively little 
importance in this controversy — Yet some facts of history with conside- 
ration — The Palatinate Churches — History not the rule of faith and 
worship — The mistake and its fatal consequences — Appeal to our readers 
— Address to brethren in the ministry — Appeal to the friends of union. 

We do not here propose to enter upon any formal argu- 
ment from history. It has its use and its place. It is 
neither legislator nor judge. It can settle nothing as a 
matter of faith, of practice, or of worship. God's word, 
revealed in the Scriptures, alone authorizes worship, with 
all its ways and forms. Anything not instituted in the 
word, as a way of worship, is not only without authority, 
but is sin forbidden, is violation of God's law. 

The province of history is to settle the occurrence of, 
events, as their facts, their times, their places, their circum- 
stances ; but never what is truth, or right, or duty, or how 
God is to be worshipped. 

Our opponents think they find much use for history in 
this controversy, and no doubt feel more at home here than 
in the Bible. They are not alone here. Presbyterianism 
finds more sturdy weapons drawn from history — from " the 
Fathers " — levelled against her, than all that can be wrested 
from the armory of God's word. Episcopacy, and even 
papacy, draw their keenest blades from the Fathers. Pres- 
bytery and its advocates are at home in the Scriptures. 
Just so in this controversy, we are not much concerned in 
regard to this section of the field. If we are able to show 
that argument from history can avail our brethren but 
14 157 



158 PSALMODY. 

little in their cause of uninspired hymns, this is enough 
for us. For, iudeed, from the very nature of the case what 
can history prove? Then 

WHAT IS THE SUM OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE PROVING 
THE DIVINE RIGHT OF HYMN-MAKING? 

What writer of hymns, or hymn-book, among all tho 
authors of the first five centuries of the Christian era, has 
been carried down in history to our times ? Why has not 
one single psalm, hymn, or spiritual song, composed within 
those five centuries, outlived the centuries, preserved its 
continuous use, its pristine, apostolic redolence, and found 
its way down intact to our times ? Why, the name of not 
one single Christian poet who composed, or one single pres- 
bytery, synod, assembly, or council, that received, examined, 
amended, authorized to be sung in the worship of God, with 
the time, the place, or people among whom such making, 
adoption, and use occurred? Why, since in every century 
the names of so many Fathers — so many of their works on 
every topic of theology and matter of history — commenta- 
ries, homilies, theological disputations, defences, apologies, 
and even creeds, Apostles', Athanasian, etc., have all found 
their way down through the ages, leaving their distinct 
traces upon their annals, and yet neither poet nor hymn- 
book ? From the days of Homer and Pindar, down through 
the times of Horace and Virgil, on till the days of Byron, 
every age and language produced its poets and its songs. 
The world abounds in the works of poets hundreds of years 
before Christ and since ; but where the record of the poets, 
the hymns, and the hymn-books of the Church for centu- 
ries, till anti-Christian apostacy, corruption in worship 
invaded by ritualism the simplicity of divinely instituted 
worship, and made and authorized and used uninspired 
songs ? 



CONCLUSION. 159 

Since papal hymn-singing and Ave Marias were intro- 
duced, since Lutheran Protestants have figured in history 
and as historians, since the extended use of uninspired de- 
nominational hymns among the large and popular churches, 
church records and church history abound with their allu- 
sions to poets, their hymns, and their hymn-books, as things 
with which the annalist is as familiar as with the Bible, 
with bible-making, bible use, bible knowledge, bible-quo- 
ting. Scarcely can any popular book be written upon any 
religious subject, from the ponderous quarto tome of the 
most learned commentator, down to the Sabbath-school 
primer, but stanzas and couplets from the favorite hymn- 
book must embellish almost every page or paragraph. If 
hymn-singing shall mark the character of the Church for 
a thousand years to come, can the name of Watts and Wes- 
ley, with their hymn-books and their hymns, pass away 
from the page of history and the memory of a hymn-singing 
Church ? Who were the Watts and the Wesleys of the first 
five centuries of the Christian era? Who were the Watts 
and the Wesleys of the Waldensian Churches ? Who made 
the hymns in the days and for the Churches of Calvin and 
Knox ? Who made the hymns sung by the brave Hugue- 
nots under Henry of Navarre, when on their knees they 
prayed and sung in full chorus before smiting their ene- 
mies "hip and thigh?" Who made the hymns sung by 
the brave Republican Hollanders before joining in battle 
with the terrible legions of Philip? Even the historian 
of Henry of Navarre and William the Silent, Prince of 
Orange, can record the names of the poets of those times, 
their hymn-books, and their hymns, alias Psalms. 

And just here, by-the-way, we have the clew to the secret 
of that apparently successful use of history on the part of 
our friends, who, like the friends of episcopacy, find them* 
selves at home in history and among the Fathers. Our 



160 PSALMODY. 

own Motley, writing of Henry of Navarre and the Hugue- 
nots, says : — 

" They went on their knees before the battle, and singing 
in full chorus a Psalm of David before smiting the Philis- 
tines hip and thigh." 

He says, speaking of the siege of Valenciennes, " whose 
whole population nearly was of the Calvinistic faith : " — 

" The music of Marot's sacred songs (a version of the 
Psalms) happened that morning to be sounding forth from 
every belfry the Twenty-second Psalm." 

Motley tells us that " the Psalms were translated into 
Flemish verse for the use of the Reformed Churches by 
Philip de Marnix." Afterward he styles this same Marnix 
"the poet, the orator, and hymn-book maker-" and Marot's 
translation of the Psalms, " Marot's sacred songs." 

How triumphantly our controversial friends of the hymns 
can, by-and-by, quote Motley, the prince, of historians, as 
proof that Huguenots and Hollanders sang hymns. How 
easy to turn, historically, the Psalms of the Bible into 
modern hymns of uninspired men ! 

Motley, in writing of these authors of translations and 
of their versions of the Psalms, and of their use by the 
French and Flemish churches, had not in his mind the 
technicalities of controversialists, and stayed hot to make 
distinctions ; but, in the language of his own New England, 
calls these authors and their versions of the Psalms — the 
one " the hymn-book maker;" the other, "Marot's sacred 
songs" while really writing of French and Flemish versions 
of the Book of Psalms. 

THE PALATINATE CHURCHES. 

The following extracts from the Mercersburgh Review, 
written by Charles P. Krauth, D. D., may be seen in the 
United Presbyterian of April 14, 1870: — 



CONCLUSION. 161 

"The original usage and tradition of the Palatinate 
Church was, that nothing but the Psalms and the poetieal 
parts of Scripture should be sung in public worship. The 
Palatinate Church order says, expressly : ' Touching the 
singing of the Psalms, the Apostle Paul exhorts, etc., etc., 
wherefore it is our will that none other than the German 
Psalms be sung in our churches.' ' German Psalms shall be 
sung before and after the sermon.' ' If the people be able 
to sing, a penitential Psalm shall be sung.' . . . 

"This book (spoken of in the first extract) has the 
Psalms rendered very closely, not with interpolations, 
changes of meaning, and subjective adaptations, like those 
of Dr. Watts, but rigorously as to the sense. It is the ver- 
sion of Lobwasser, the Rouse of the German Church. He 
was a Lutheran, but the rigid literalness of his renderings 
prevented their use in the Lutheran Church. The desire 
of the Reformed Church evidently was to have the Psalms 
as nearly like the original as was consistent with their being 
sung by the people. ... To sing medications, like those of 
Dr. Watts and his school, as the very Psalms of David, 
would have been an abomination to the original Reformed 
Churches. . . . We speak advisedly when we say, that to 
the whole original Reformed Church, and especially to the 
Palatinate Fathers, a large proportion of what is sung as 
1 Psalms ' in the English congregations of the German Re- 
formed Church would have been intolerable, on the ground 
that, pretending to be Psalms of David, they were really 
the Psalms of Dr. Watts, and of the other authors of the 
sacred parodies. When the German Reformed Church 
came to use such imitations of the Psalms, she never put 
them among the Psalms, but where they belong, among 
hymns — human effusions suggested by divine originals. 
The other course is a complete confounding of the unequivo- 
cally apocryphal with the canonical, and the effect has been 



162 ' PSALMODY. 

very mischievous. Dr. Watts' Psalms have virtually had 
the authority of inspiration with those who sing them." 

It will require more historic evidence than is furnished 
by Mosheim, JSTeander, and all the copyists of Lutheran 
historians, to establish the hypothesis that the Apostolic 
Church — the Waldensian — the French Protestant and 
Huguenot — the Continental Reformed — the Scottish Pres- 
byterian, were all hymn-singing churches ; or, to establish 
as a historical truth, that with all these churches unin- 
spired hymns were the rule, and inspired Bible songs the 
exception 

HISTORY NOT THE RULE OF FAITH AND WORSHIP. 

That uninspired hymns may have been introduced, as 
other heresies, in the third or fourth centuries, we are not 
very careful to deny. That such hymns were used in the 
worship of God, under the influence of the Roman apos- 
tacy, we do not pretend to deny. That Luther brought 
with him from Rome his love of hymns, as his love of con- 
substantiation, is too palpable to admit of denial. That 
Lutheran historians were even bigots for hymns, we are 
not inclined to deny. That they impartially represent 
either Presbyterianism or a Scripture psalmody, we are in 
no haste to grant. The Lutheran Church, in many things, 
was never much more than half reformed. While other 
Reformed churches were chanting the songs of the Bible, 
Lutheran churches were singing Lutheran hymns. 

Lutheran historians sometimes prove nothing by at- 
tempting to prove too much ; as, that Scripture Psalms 
were not sung in the Christian Church till the third or 
fourth century. Nobody believes this — not even those 
who quote and use the statement. And further, were more 
even than is well attested true, what could that settle in 
this controversy? Can any way of worship claim Divine 



CONCLUSION. 163 

authority because early and extensively practised in the 
Christian Church ? Antichrist, that "wicked one, began to 
work as early as the time of the beloved disciple John. 
His anti-Christian corruptions have been steadily working 
ever since, and are now, as ever, working, carrying the 
multitude, as on the bosom of a flood, with them. Are 
these corruptions therefore right ? The same line of argu- 
ment is used, and with better grace, by Arians, Baptists, 
Prelatists, and Papists. And will all their appeals to his- 
tory and to the Fathers convert Presbyterians from their 
and our beloved, old apostolical and scriptural Presbyte- 
rianism ? Never ! And why ? Simply because our home — 
the home of our dear Presbytery — is the Bible. 

Before we shall, in this controversy, be affected by ap- 
peals to history, any more than in the controversy with 
Prelacy, our friends must furnish something more tangible, 
something more reliable, something more like fact and Bible 
teaching. We demand some author or authors of a hymn- 
book or hymn-books, some supreme judicatory or judica- 
tories, which received, examined, approved, and authorized 
them to be sung in all the churches, and that were sung in 
all the churches during the first three centuries. We chal- 
lenge even the shadow of authentic historical evidence that 
any poet prepared a book of hymns, that any apostolical 
supreme judicatory ever sat, or counselled, or deliberated, 
or adjudicated upon such hymn-book, or upon the adoption 
of any system of psalmody at all. More : we challenge 
authentic history for one single instance of the "Presbyte- 
rian way " of preparing hymns for the Church, outside the 
Papacy, for fourteen centuries from Christ. We demand 
the Watts of the Walclensian Church, his l^mn-book, the 
approval and sanction of the Waldensian supreme judica- 
tory, and the use of such hymn-book before the fifteenth 
century. So we demand of all the early Reformed Churches 



164 PSALMODY. 

— the Lutheran, of course, excepted. We are aware the 
Lutheran and all the other German Reformed Churches 
were at odds on the subject of the " rigid literalness " of the 
renderings of Lobwasser, the Rouse of the German Re- 
formed Churches. There is more of authentic history and 
testimony bearing on the question of psalmody in the brief 
quotation from the "Palatinate Order" — the organic law 
and directory for worship of the Reformed Churches — than 
in all the scraps of Lutheran history, gathered and paraded 
mostly without satisfactory vouchers. There is, too, more 
evidence in the statements of Motley in regard to the Flem- 
ish version of Philip de Marnix for the use of the Reformed 
Churches — the French version of Marot, and the German 
of Lobwasser ; for here are the translators, their tangible 
and veritable versions, the veritable churches and their 
organic law, settling the use of a Scripture psalmody. 
Where, till the time of Watts, among Reformed churches, 
the author, the hymn-book, the judicial sanction of any 
Reformed church in the modern Presbyterian way ? 

The inflexible tenacity of Luther was proverbial. His 
favorite motto, " Hoe est meum corpus" behind which he 
entrenched himself in battling for a darling heresy, was 
but the index to the man and his disciples, who so often 
betrayed their neutrality in the struggles of reformers with 
papal tyranny, or their sympathies with popish ritualism. 

And then, what sin, heresy, error, or corruption in wor- 
ship, cannot be proved venerable and hoary by history? 
Slavery has reigned for cycles of centuries ; when, since the 
days of Nimrod, did it not curse the earth ? Papal and 
prelatic corruption, ritualism, superstition, will-worship and 
tyranny have dominated over the masses — "the world 
wondering after the beast " — for twelve hundred years. Is 
all this, therefore, right, and of God? Rather, in stead, 
Christ's two witnesses are right, and their testimony ap- 






CONCLUSION. 165 

proved of God, though wearing sackcloth, and in number 
as two to one hundred and forty and four thousand with the 
Lamb on the Mount Zion. 

THE MISTAKE AND ITS FATAL TENDENCIES. 

Our brethren object to our way of worship, because, as 
they charge, " it comes short of the New Testament pattern 
in some of the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel ;" and 
" our trumpet gives so uncertain a sound, our testimony for 
the great vital truth of Christianity is so vague and feeble, 
that Arians and Jews cordially hold communion with us. 
Can this be right ? Where in the Psalms are we taught 
that the babe of Bethlehem was the child- born, the Son 
given of prophecy ?" 

We are sorry to see here, as elsewhere, the inability of 
our brethren to see Christ in the Psalms as he is really there. 
We are sorry our friends cannot see Him as He saw and 
pointed others to Himself in them ; that they cannot see 
Him as Apostles and inspired writers of the New Testa- 
ment saw Him, and there point to Him so clearly in so 
many Psalms where neither His disciples nor we would 
have otherwise discovered Him. Brethren, we are aware 
that your cause and consistency demand that you see as 
little of Christ and of spirituality as possible in the Psalms. 
You need to have the veil of Moses or of prejudice well 
drawn over your minds when you read or sing the Psalms, 
lest you should see too much of Christ, of his fulness, and 
«f their spirituality and richness ; and lest you should feel 
the heart-warming power of His love and grace reflected 
from this part of His own perfect and transforming mirror. 
Such discoveries are always, and, necessarily, fatal to your 
cause. Though this may seem a hard charge, yet it is in 
fact true ; for, in fact you endeavor to hide — pressed in 
debate by the necessity of your cause — Christ from your- 



166 PSALMODY. 

selves and all others in the use of the Psalms. For ex- 
ample of fact, you lay Christ aside, put the veil over Him 
as He is in the First Psalm; because, assuming that Christ 
is not " that man of perfect blessedness, "who walketh not 
astray " — as he is, primarily, that veritable man — you think 
you have a vantage ground ; and so you assume it, and so 
improve it for the defence of your cause. You shut your 
eyes to the truth that no " mere man " is there described ; 
that " no mere man since the fall," even for one day, failed 
to go astray in thought, word, and deed. So you cannot 
afford to have the Man of the Twenty-fourth Psalm to be 
the Man Christ, whose ascension we sing there — the Man 
of "clean hands" and "pure heart;" true of none but the 
Man who led captivity captive, and who is the King of 
glory. What else but this dreadful fatality could have 
led one of the champion defenders of your cause, in speak- 
ing of the Sixteenth Psalm, to use such expression as this : 
" This is plainly the sense, for how could David's soul (not 
his body) be left in the grave?" What, but some blind 
fatuity, induced by the spell of partisan controversy in a 
bad cause, could lead men, otherwise intelligent, to use such 
language in the very face of the positive declaration of 
holy writ, that the expression of the Psalm refers to the 
resurrection of Christ, and no more to David than to Adam? 
So, to subserve a bad cause, a veil must, as much as pos- 
sible, be thrown over the Psalms to hide Christ from the 
faith of the worshipper. 

Oh, how many precious Psalms, redolent with Christ, 
might we place in this category ! But how painful ! Rather, 
in what Psalm is there nothing of Christ? What one is not 
the very word of Christ? What one speaks not of His 
person, His work, His Gospel, His grace, or His hidden 
life. 

Yes, brethren, we do find in the Psalms Christ, that Man 



CONCLUSION. 167 

of "perfect blessedness," that Man of "clean hands and 
pure heart." We can find, too, that babe of Bethlehem, 
His birth and birthplace, His life, His sufferings, His death, 
His resurrection, His ascension, His glory and reign — all, 
all in the Psalms ; and there delineated with a "master's 
hand as human poet's pen can never do. And just here 
you or we are fatally mistaken. Do we find too much of 
Christ and His salvation in the Psalms ? Are we in danger 
here of clinging too closely to the Bible songs to find and 
enjoy that measure of communion with our Saviour that 
we might by drawing from the effusions of uninspired 
poets? Can we, indeed, be in danger of finding too much 
spirituality in the inspired songs of Christ's own word ? 

Let me say, here, Christ is found in the Psalms, and of 
design, as in no other composition of the Bible. The Evan- 
gelists, as in no other part of -the Bible, give the history of 
the outer man of Christ, as He was seen, and heard, and 
as He lived among men. The Psalms unfold His hidden 
life, the life of His soul — the hidden, inward, deep sorrows 
of the soul of the Man of sorrows, as no where else. Hear 
Himself speak the touching tones of the unutterable agonies 
of the inner soul : — 

" Of death the cords and sorrows did about me compass round; 
The pains of hell took hold on me; I grief and trouble found." 

What sinner, under evangelical conviction for sin, can 
fail to find in this mirror the life-painting of the inner con- 
trition and pangs of an awakened soul? And as Christ's 
inward experience as in the Psalms delineated — whether 
His sorrows, His joys, His faith or hope — is the perfect 
model of all Christian experience and of all gracious at- 
tainments, so His life there is presented as the perfect model 
of Christian life. As Christ never walked astray, as His 
hands were perfectly clean, and His heart perfectly pure, 



168 PSALMODY. 

so we should aim and must attain before we shall appear 
with Him in glory. 

Again, we think you here come in contact with an im- 
portant Bible principle — to make a man an offender for 
a word which God in his word condemns. In the Psalms 
we have the things which you deny there, because the spirit 
of inspiration has not chosen the words that please you. 
We certainly find the birth of Christ in more Psalms than 
one, and according to prophecy the place, too, in words we 
understand ; and, if you cannot so understand, we are sorry. 
We try to read and sing the Psalms of the Bible with the 
veil of Moses laid aside, which, perhaps, if you succeed in 
throwing off, you may discover the Christ in Bethlehem 
born in Psalm exxxii. Instead of the old veil, we endeavor 
to read and sing with the new glasses of the New Testa- 
ment on our eyes. We interpret our Psalms by the com- 
mentary of the New Testament. This we find to be the 
true key, and here we find the true glasses. Christ gave 
these glasses for the very purpose of the better seeing Him 
in the Psalms. 

In regard to the very verbiage of the Psalms, it would 
seem they were clothed in terms designed to obviate the 
very objections pressed against their use. This fact is 
certainly remarkable everywhere in speaking of Christ — 
His. birth, life, sufferings, death, resurrection, ascension, 
session at God's right hand — all as past ; when to be, or yet 
to come ? How much easier for us than for the Jews to 
sing in " literal form ?" Moses' veil — with other veils — off, 
we can read their design for New Testament use especially, 
and most consistently sing, in very words, a Saviour come. 
Were the Psalms prepared specially for a dispensation 
lasting, after they were given, but a few hundred years, or 
for one of more thousands of years ? Were they prepared 
for Jews or for Christians ? In literal form, for which more 



CONCLUSION. 169 

literally appropriate ? But Christ's Church is one. Praise, 
a moral duty, is one and unchanged by change of dispen- 
sation. 

In bidding farewell to our readers, permit us to ad- 
dress a parting word to the friends of a Scripture psalmody. 

Remember the importance of Bible knowledge. Re- 
member Christ has said, " Search the Scriptures, for they 
are they which testify of me." Just in proportion as we 
study the word of God, just as we study to understand the 
teachings of the Psalms, so will we love them, so will we 
find Christ in them, so will we enjoy and profit by their 
use, finding in them food for our souls. Remember man 
shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which 
proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Whatever order or 
matter of worship will bring us into closer contact with the 
Divine mirror, that is the safest way of worship, bringing 
the greater glory to God, and the larger measure of enjoy- 
ment to ourselves. In the study and singing of inspired 
Psalms we bring our hearts under the direct influence of 
the reflecting and transforming power of that glass, be- 
holding in which " we are changed into the same image 
from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." 
The Divine Spirit and Author of sanctification, we think, 
prefers to use His own mirror. We may be assured He 
will have respect to the Saviour's prayer : " Sanctify them 
through Thy truth ; Thy word is truth." Can we doubt 
that the safer way is the use of Scripture songs, which we 
know, with unwavering confidence, have the approval of 
God ; while we cannot have the same assurance that He 
approves the use of the erring effusions of uninspired erring 
men ? " He that doubteth is damned if he eat." Can we, 
with the same confidence of faith, sing one thing as well 
as another ? " Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Can we 
15 



170 PSALMODY. 

sing the songs of God's word in faith ? Certainly ! is the 
prompt answer of every believing heart. Can we as well 
sing in faith what man says — man's words f No man, fear- 
ing God, and believing His word as the only ground of 
faith, can, without trembling misgivings, at once respond, 
" Certainly /" Ah, how significant the contrast here ! Yet, 
certainly, the language of the heart, inspired by faith and 
love to the Saviour, when the sound of the inspired song 
falls upon the ear, will be — " The voice of my Beloved ! 
behold, He cometh leaping upon the* mountains, skipping 
upon the hills." Such is the secret power of the hand of 
that " voice that knocketh" standing at the door, — a power 
that moves the heart and opens its foldings. 

For Christian walk we have the counsel of unerring Wis- 
dom here. Here we have the exhibitions of the life and 
character of the perfect Man, the Divine Man and mode 1 
of Christian life and Christian attainments. Here is con- 
spicuously set before us the Divine " scopos," the mark at 
which we must aim, and to which we must run. Here is 
revealed the hidden life and perfect model of Christian 
experience — the model test by which every grace and every 
exercise of grace can so satisfactorily and safely be tested. 
Here, too, is food for the soul, which, while it satiates, it 
never cloys nor tends to loathing ; as honey, ever sweeter ; 
as richest pastures, ever fresh and green ; as crystal streams, 
never fouled ; the bread and water, eating and drinking, 
we shall live upon and never hunger, never die. But when 
the dissolving time for this clay-house shall come, how 
believing instinct will turn to that Psalm made by our 
Shepherd's hand for the dying pillow ! How many heads 
have rested there, and trembling hands have grasped the 
staff on which our Shepherd leaned. 

"Yea, though I walk in death's dark vale, yet will I fear no ill; 
For thou art with me, and thy rod and staff me comfort still." 



CONCLUSION. 171 

Around these dear old songs, ever new, our affections 
cluster and linger. On these our faith has often rested, 
and our hope anchored. From these, in the dark hours of 
our pilgrimage, a cheering light has gleamed along our 
pathway, lightening up with brightness so often. We have 
seen our fathers pass along the dark valley, staying their 
steps down to the brink, and through the swellings of Jor- 
dan, with these as the Shepherd's staff in hand — these, the 
veritable covenant promises, all their salvation, all their 
desire. On these it is good to live ; on these it is safe to 
die. 

To my dear brethren in the ministry permit me to say : 
Be not moved by the partisan cry of " Rouse's poetry, 
patchwork, paraphrase, no version at all." This is the last 
ditch in the controversial tactics of a bad cause. If our 
version have its blemishes, there is an easy remedy. Trans- 
lations are human things. Our common Bible translation 
is a human thing, and has its full share of blemishes. We 
are not irrevocably pledged to any version of inspired songs. 
We demonstrate this by the verbal and rhythmical correc- 
tions of our old version, and by our endeavors to secure 
new and improved versions as we are able to add them, 
keeping steadily in view the integrity of translation and 
the literary demands of the age. We are not a stand-still 
Church in matters of mere form, or of taste, or of prefer- 
ence. In matters of faith, of Christian life and labors, of 
divinely instituted worship, let it be far otherwise with us. 
Let us ever walk with firm, unwavering step and faith into 
the sacred desk ; there read, expound, and sing those pre- 
cious songs of the divine psalter as our Master's text-book, 
inspired as every other book of the Bible is inspired. We 
know that with us it is not the preference of one hymn- 
book over another, or one version even exclusively. 



172 PSALMODY. 

We know, from comparison with the original text, the 
songs we sing in the public worship of God are His in- 
spired word, if we have that word in our own language at 
all. With the text in our hands, before our conscience, in 
the presence of our flocks, and before the presence of our 
covenant God, we can roll back every challenge, whether 
from enemies without, or from unbelief within ; we know 
and feel these songs to be the testimony of Jesus, the word 
of Christ, which He commands to let dwell in us richly, the 
ground of our faith, and His truth unchallenged. Are not 
these the Shepherd's pastures, where we should lead His 
flocks? And are not these the running streams of the 
water of life by which He would have us gently lead His 
lambs ? Oh, these are healthier pastures ; these are purer 
waters than those to which the flocks of the companions 
turn aside. 

Friends op union : How long shall the sword devour ? 
For the scathed tribes of Israel is there no gathering time ? 
Faith brings her answer : " Zion's watchmen shall lift up 
their voice; with the voice together shall they sing; for 
they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again 
Zion." Nothing more certain in the future than a union 
in the psalmody of the Churches. Can that be on the 
basis of any sectarian or denominational hymnology? 
Why may it not be on the songs of the Bible ? Could these 
be offensive to any, or a stumbling block to anything but 
bigotry ? Is there not matter enough in all the songs of 
the Bible for all the reasonable purposes of social praise ? 
Are they not suitable? Are they not greatly superior to 
any hymnal extant, or any that man can make ? Why, 
then, not unite where there can be a basis of union for all ? 

The Lord hasten it in His time ! And to this end may 
the Lord bless our feeble reasoning together through these 
humble pages. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



